DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 5, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 26-43 are newly added and examined; therefore the previous rejections over claims 1-6, 8-21 and 24-25 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“directable energetic excitation means” and “means for circulating the fluid between said inlet and said outlet” in claim 26
“means for controlling the injection flow rate and suction flow rate” in claim 33
“means for imaging the interaction region” in claim 39.
Regarding “directable energetic excitation means”, the limitation will be interpreted as “a laser” as claimed in claim 36 and in the instant specification on pg. 12, line 3.
Regarding “means for circulating the fluid between said inlet and said outlet” and “means for controlling the injection flow rate and suction flow rate”, the limitation will be interpreted as “a pump circulate the carrier fluid” in the instant specification on pg. 16, line 21-23.
Regarding “means for controlling the injection flow rate and suction flow rate”, the function “controlling the injection flow rate and suction flow rate” does not provide sufficient structure and the instant specification does not provide additional sufficient structure for the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as a computer.
Regarding “means for imaging the interaction region”, the limitation will be interpreted as “imaging (camera and image recovery lens)”.
Further Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 41 and 43, “and/or” will be interpreted as “or”.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 and 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 26, line 7-8 – “said interaction region” should read “said at least one interaction region” to recite to “at least one region for interaction” in line 6,
claim 26, last two lines – “said inlet and said outlet” should read “said at least one inlet and at least one outlet” to recite to “at least one inlet” in line 7 and “at least one outlet” in line 8,
furthermore, claim 30-33 recite “said inlet” and “said outlet”, and should read “said at least one inlet” and “said at least one outlet”, respectively
claim 28, line 2 – “(4)” should be deleted as the claims do not recite reference numbers
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 33 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 33, it is unclear what is the structure for a “means of controlling the injection flow rate and suction flow rate”, as the function does not provide sufficient structure and the instant specification does not provide additional sufficient structure for the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as a computer.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the injection flow rate and suction flow rate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite “injection flow rate” and “suction flow rate” before the recitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “an injection flow rate and suction flow rate”.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites “said slide having, on either side of the plate, a transverse groove, each of said grooves”. The word “either” means “one or the other” and does not recite both, rendering the limitation unclear and indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “said slide having, on both sides of the plate, a transverse groove, each of said grooves” as interpreted in FIG. 15 and in the instant specification on pg. 30-31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 26-32, 36, and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot (US 20170368822) in view of Buchner (WO 2011070079, an English machine translation is provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 26, Guillemot teaches an additive printing apparatus (¶ [0047] - a printing device 50),
a directable (¶ [0052] - an optical system 68) energetic excitation means (¶ [0052] - 68 thus makes it possible to change the area impacted by the laser beam 66) for producing a point of interaction with a fluid covering a slide (¶ [0052] – 68 enables the adjustment of the focus to the depositing surface 56; focus 66 on an impacted area and change the position of the area) to cause a jet oriented toward a target (¶ [0047] – deposit droplets 52 of 54; ¶ [0052] - 68 change the area impacted by the laser beam in an impact plane referenced Pi in FIG. 3), said fluid comprising a liquid containing transferable inhomogeneities (¶ [0048] - a bio-ink 54 comprises a matrix 60; also see interpretation below as material worked upon), wherein:
said fluid form a liquid film having a thickness of less than 500 µm (¶ [0023] - the film has a thickness of less than 500 μm; also see interpretation below as intended use and material worked upon).
on a slide (Fig. 3, ¶ [0053] - donor substrate 70) having at least one region (Fig. 3, ¶ [0053] - 70 comprises an absorbent layer 72 whereon a film 74 of at least one bio-ink is affixed) for interaction with energy emitted by the directable energetic excitation means (Fig. 3, ¶ [0053] - for the wavelength of the laser beam 66).
The limitation “for producing point interaction with a fluid covering a slide, in order to cause a jet directed toward a target, said fluid consisting of a liquid vector containing transferable inhomogeneities” recites a manner of operating the device for an intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Guillemot teaches that an optical system changes the area impacted by the laser beam in an impact plane and adjustment of focus (¶ [0052]), the optical system and laser beam are capable of performing the intended use of “for producing point interaction with a fluid covering a slide, in order to cause a jet directed toward a target, said fluid consisting of a liquid vector containing transferable inhomogeneities”. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the optical system and laser beam in Guillemot are capable of performing the intended use, they meet the limitations as claimed.
The limitation “said fluid comprising a liquid containing transferable inhomogeneities” and “form a liquid film having a thickness of less than 500 µm” recites the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Guillemot does not teach:
into which region at least one inlet leads, said interaction region leading into at least one outlet,
the apparatus further comprising means for circulating the fluid between said inlet and said outlet
Analogous art Buchner teaches an additive printing apparatus (¶ [0002] - device for transferring printing substance from a printing substance carrier onto a substrate). A laser 35 is focused into layer 20 and there a change in volume and position occurs which ultimately releases a droplet 21 of pressure substance from 20 and applies to the tops surface 17 of substrate 16 (¶ [0032]).
Buchner further teaches:
into which region at least inlet (¶ [0029-0031], FIG. 1 – pressurized substant 19 exits from duct outlet 27 from supply line 25) leads said interaction region (¶ [0032] - printing substance carrier 13 where laser 35 passes through; Fig. 1 depicts printing substance flows into and across an interaction region on 13) leading into at least one outlet (¶ [0030-0031] – drainage channel inlet 32; the printing substance 19 is sucked off at the printing substance discharge line 30 with strong negative pressure);
the apparatus further comprising means for circulating the fluid between said inlet and said outlet (¶ [0015], [0031] - a type of permanently present printing substance layer can be achieved in the separation area, this layer is constantly fed by inflowing pressure substance; ensuring uniform flow of the pressure substance 19 over surface 14 of 13 in the detachment area 23).
Guillemot and Buchner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate the holder with printing substance fed by a printing substance supply line into a zone of the holder and suck off at the printing substance discharge line as taught by Buchner as described above to create a type of permanently present printing substance layer (Buchner ¶ [0015]), which has the cost-saving benefit since the post-flowing printing substance is constantly fed to the substance layer.
Regarding claim 27, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26. Guillemot teaches the thickness of said film is between 20 and 100 µm (¶ [0026] - ink film with a thickness of the order of 40 and 50 μm).
The limitation “form a liquid film having a thickness of less than 500 µm” recites the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 28, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26. Guillemot teaches the film has a thickness of less than 500 μm and/or has a dimension of the free surface of the film on film thickness ratio greater than or equal to 10 (¶ [0023]). The formation of droplets 30 also depends on the thickness E of the bio-ink film (¶ [0014]). The droplets will not form if the thickness E of the bio-ink film is not included in a thickness range defined by a lower bound and an upper bound (¶ [0014]). If the thickness E has a value above the upper limit, no droplet will form because the expansion of the gas bubble 28 is too weak to reach the free surface of the film (¶ [0014]). If the thickness E has a value under the lower limit, the gas bubble will burst 28 at the free surface causing the uncontrolled projection of a plurality of micro-droplets toward the receiving substrate (¶ [0014]).
Guillemot does not explicitly teach the ratio between the fluid film thickness of said film is between 3 and 10 times the nominal size of said transferable inhomogeneities.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the range of fluid film thickness to between 3 and 10 times a nominal size of the transferable inhomogeneities, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to minimize the kinetic energy of the droplet, it’s preferable that the film thickness to be optimized to have an upper limit. In addition, to ensure the droplets are evenly dispersed across the film layer, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a lower limit for the film thickness. One would have been motivated to make this optimization for the purpose of limiting the risk of damaging the elements contained in droplet (¶ [0023]). Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
The limitation “the thickness of said film is between 2 and 10 times the nominal size of said transferable inhomogeneities” recites the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 29, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26. Guillemot teaches the droplets emitted from the first surface 48 are projected toward receiving substrate 42 (¶ [0017]). Guillemot teaches the surface of said interaction region is greater than 0.05 mm2 (¶ [0078] - the film 74 is characterized by a (dimension of the free surface 78)/film thickness 74) ratio greater than or equal to 10, and advantageously greater than or equal to 20. The size of the free surface 78 corresponds to the largest dimension of the free surface 78 of the film 74 in a plane parallel to the plane of impact Pi; ¶ [0023] - the film has a thickness of less than 500 μm and/or has a dimension of the free surface of the film on film thickness ratio greater than or equal to 10).
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
f
r
e
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
500
μ
m
=
10
1
(
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
l
o
w
e
r
e
n
d
)
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
f
r
e
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
=
500
μ
m
*
10
=
5000
μ
m
=
5
m
m
a
r
e
a
=
(
5
m
m
)
2
=
25
m
m
2
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
f
r
e
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
500
μ
m
=
20
1
(
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
u
p
p
e
r
e
n
d
)
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
f
r
e
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
=
500
μ
m
*
20
=
10000
μ
m
=
10
m
m
a
r
e
a
=
(
10
m
m
)
2
=
100
m
m
2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a free surface area of 25-100 mm2 as taught by Guillemot because in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding claim 30, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26. Guillemot does not teach said inlet leads into a lateral part of said interaction region.
Buchner teaches said inlet 27 leads into a lateral part (¶ [0027] – surface 14 of 13) of said interaction region (Fig. 1 depicts part of duct outlet 27 opens into 14 of 13).
Guillemot and Buchner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate a fluid inlet opens into the surface (a lateral part) of the interaction region (free surface) of the carrier (slide) as taught by Buchner to introduce fluid into fluid film and create a type of permanently present printing substance layer (Buchner ¶ [0015]), which has the cost-saving benefit since the post-flowing printing substance is constantly fed to the substance layer.
Furthermore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements (the placement of the inlet leads into a lateral part of said interaction region) were in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (flow of printing substance is more effectively fed to the substance layer) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2143.02.
Regarding claim 31, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26.
Guillemot does not teach said interaction region has a peripheral part laterally into said outlet.
Buchner teaches said interaction region has a peripheral part (¶ [0029] – surface 14 of 13) laterally into said outlet (¶ [0029]; Fig. 1 depicts 14 of 13 opens into drainage channel inlet 32).
Guillemot and Buchner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate the interaction region of the substrate having a surface (peripheral part) laterally into the outlet as taught by Buchner to recycle fluid from fluid film and create a type of permanently present printing substance layer (Buchner ¶ [0015]) which has the cost-saving benefit since the post-flowing printing substance is constantly fed to the substance layer.
Furthermore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements (the placement of the outlet from to a lateral part of the interaction region) were in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (flow of printing substance is more effectively fed to the substance layer) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.02.
Regarding claim 32, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26.
Guillemot does not disclose said inlet and said outlet consist of tubular channels connected to the interaction region.
Buchner teaches said inlet and said outlet consist of tubular channels connected to the interaction region (¶ [0031] - hose-like or tube-like pressure substance supply line 25 to the application channel outlet 27; FIG. 1 depicts substance discharge 30 with the same structure of 25, therefore is also hose-like or tube-like).
Guillemot and Buchner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate a fluid supply system with a tube-like fluid inlet and outlet as taught by Buchner as described above to create a type of permanently present printing substance layer (Buchner ¶ [0015]), which has the cost-saving benefit since the post-flowing printing substance is constantly fed to the substance layer.
Regarding claim 36, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26. Guillemot further teaches said energetic excitation means comprises a laser (¶ [0011] - laser beam 12).
Regarding claim 42, Guillemot teaches an additive printing method using an apparatus comprising:
a directable (¶ [0052] - an optical system 68) energetic excitation means (¶ [0052] - 68 thus makes it possible to change the area impacted by the laser beam 66) for producing point interaction with a fluid covering a slide (¶ [0052] – 68 enables the adjustment of the focus to the depositing surface 56; focus 66 on an impacted area and change the position of the area), in order to cause a jet oriented toward a target (¶ [0047] – deposit droplets 52 of 54; ¶ [0052] - 68 change the area impacted by the laser beam in an impact plane referenced Pi in FIG. 3), said fluid comprising a liquid vector containing transferable inhomogeneities (¶ [0048] - a bio-ink 54 comprises a matrix 60), wherein
said fluid form a liquid film having a thickness of less than 500 µm (¶ [0023] - the film has a thickness of less than 500 μm),
on a slide (Fig. 3, ¶ [0053] - donor substrate 70), which has at least one region (Fig. 3, ¶ [0053] - 70 comprises an absorbent layer 72 whereon a film 74 of at least one bio-ink is affixed) for interaction with energy emitted by the directable energetic excitation means (Fig. 3, ¶ [0053] - for the wavelength of the laser beam 66).
Guillemot does not teach: circulating between an inlet duct and an outlet duct, which has at least one region for interaction …, and into which at least one inlet leads.
Analogous art Buchner teaches an additive printing apparatus (¶ [0002] - device for transferring printing substance from a printing substance carrier onto a substrate). A laser 35 is focused into layer 20 and there a change in volume and position occurs which ultimately releases a droplet 21 of pressure substance from 20 and applies to the tops surface 17 of substrate 16 (¶ [0032]).
Buchner further teaches:
circulating between an inlet duct (¶ [0029-0031], FIG. 1 – pressurized substant 19 exits from duct outlet 27 from supply line 25) and an outlet duct (¶ [0030-0031] – drainage channel inlet 32; the printing substance 19 is sucked off at the printing substance discharge line 30 with strong negative pressure), which has at least one region for interaction (¶ [0015], [0031] - a type of permanently present printing substance layer can be achieved in the separation area, this layer is constantly fed by inflowing pressure substance; ensuring uniform flow of the pressure substance 19 over surface 14 of 13 in the detachment area 23), and
into which region at least inlet (¶ [0029-0031] - duct outlet 27 from supply line 25) leads (¶ [0032] - printing substance carrier 13 where laser 35 passes through; Fig. 1 depicts printing substance flows into and across an interaction region on 13).
Guillemot and Buchner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate the holder with printing substance fed by a printing substance supply line into a zone of the holder and suck off at the printing substance discharge line as taught by Buchner as described above to create a type of permanently present printing substance layer (Buchner ¶ [0015]), which has the cost-saving benefit since the post-flowing printing substance is constantly fed to the substance layer.
Regarding claim 43, modified Guillemot disclose the method of claim 42.
Guillemot further teaches said energetic excitation means comprises a laser (¶ [0011] - laser beam 12), a level of energy per pulse of the laser is controlled by a computer (¶ [0050] – laser source 64 can be configured to adjust at least one characteristic of the laser beam: wavelength, frequency, energy, diameter, pulse duration) according to the result of measurement of characteristics of the fluid present in the interaction region, said measurements including a particle density or thickness according to a density of inhomogeneities (¶ [0013] – bio-ink in the form of a film with a thickness lower than a threshold to be held and this threshold varies according to density of bio-ink).
Claims 33 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot (US 20170368822) in view of Buchner (WO 2011070079), as applied to claim 26 and 36, in further view of Zhang (US 20200122140).
Regarding claim 33, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26.
Guillemot does not disclose said means for circulating the fluid between said inlet and said outlet comprise means for controlling the injection flow rate and suction flow rate in order to control the flow rate of the fluid in the interaction region.
Analogous art Zhang teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract - stereolithographic printing device), comprising a fluid circulation system (¶ [0058] - the chamber can have one or more outlets 216 through which the ink being washed out of the system can be discarded, recirculated, or reused).
Zhang further teaches means for circulating the fluid between said inlet and said outlet comprise means for controlling the injection flow rate and suction flow rate in order to control the flow rate of the fluid in the interaction region (¶ [0079] - reasonable laminar flow in the printing region was able to be observed with a high-speed digital camera… both stress and fluid velocity values are linearly correlated by inlet pressure or inlet velocity)
Guillemot and Zhang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid supply system in Guillemot to incorporate a fluid circulation system with a high-speed digital camera as taught by Zhang to reuse the material being washed out of the system (Zhang ¶ [0058]) and prevent gel displacement by high shear stresses (Zhang ¶ [0079]).
Regarding claim 39, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 36.
Guillemot teaches control the laser (¶ [0050] – laser source 64 can be configured to adjust at least one characteristic of the laser beam: wavelength, frequency, energy, diameter, pulse duration) according to a density of inhomogeneities (¶ [0013] – bio-ink in the form of a film with a thickness lower than a threshold to be held and this threshold varies according to density of bio-ink).
Guillemot does not disclose said apparatus comprises means for imaging the interaction region.
Analogous art Zhang teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract - stereolithographic printing device), comprising a fluid circulation system (¶ [0058] - the chamber can have one or more outlets 216 through which the ink being washed out of the system can be discarded, recirculated, or reused).
Zhang further teaches said apparatus comprises means for imaging the interaction region (¶ [0079] - reasonable laminar flow in the printing region was able to be observed with a high-speed digital camera… both stress and fluid velocity values are linearly correlated by inlet pressure or inlet velocity)
Guillemot and Zhang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of additive manufacturing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fluid supply system in Guillemot to incorporate a fluid circulation system with a high-speed digital camera as taught by Zhang to reuse the material being washed out of the system (Zhang ¶ [0058]) and prevent gel displacement by high shear stresses (Zhang ¶ [0079]).
Claims 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot (US 20170368822) in view of Buchner (WO 2011070079), as applied to claim 26, in further view of Zhang (US 20200122140), as applied to claim 33, in further view of Aoto (US 20200298440).
Regarding claim 34, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 33.
Guillemot does not teach the said means for controlling injection flow rate and the suction flow rate are dependent on the measurement of the thickness of the film, in order to control the thickness of the film in the interaction region.
Analogous art Aoto teaches a method of irradiating an opposite surface of a base to a surface of the base, on which a light-absorbing material is disposed, with an optical vortex laser beam to generate a liquid droplet (Abstract).
Aoto teaches the said means for controlling injection flow rate and the suction flow rate are dependent on the measurement of the thickness of the film (¶ [0105] - the regulating blade is disposed downstream of the storage tank in the rotational direction of the supply roller configured to regulate the light-absorbing material born on the supply roller), in order to control the thickness of the film in the interaction region (¶ [0105] - to level the average thickness and to stabilize an amount of the light-absorbing material to be flown).
Guillemot and Aoto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to apply the regulation of light-absorbing material as taught by Aoto to control the thickness of the fluid film with the benefit of stabilizing an amount of the light-absorbing material to be flown (Aoto ¶ [0105]).
Claims 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot (US 20170368822) in view of Buchner (WO 2011070079), as applied to claim 26 and 36, further in view of Suhara (US 20200379251).
Regarding claim 37, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 36.
Guillemot does not teach the interaction region is transparent in the wavelength band of the laser and in the imaging wavelength band and does not have a sacrificial layer.
Suhara teaches the interaction region is transparent in the wavelength band of the laser (Fig. 1, ¶ [0038] - The light-absorbing material 11 is carried on a transparent sheet 12 that is a carrier that forms a light-absorbing material supply unit 10) and in the imaging wavelength band and does not have a sacrificial layer (Fig. 1 - the transparent sheet 12 does not have any sacrificial layer).
Guillemot and Suhara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a transparent slide without any sacrificial layer as taught by Suhara to the printing device in Guillemot because the combination of known elements, in this case a transparent slide without any sacrificial layer attaching with light-absorbing material to form a known light-absorbing material supply unit (Suhara ¶ [0038]) is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143.02.
Claims 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot (US 20170368822) in view of Buchner (WO 2011070079), as applied to claim 26 and 36, and Suhara (US 20200379251), as applied to claim 37, alternatively in further view of Aoto (US 20200298440).
Regarding claim 38, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 37.
The limitation “said fluid is loaded with a pigment which is absorbent in the emission wavelength of the laser” recites the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
In arguendo, the limitation is not reciting material worked upon, Aoto is applied.
Aoto teaches said fluid is loaded with a pigment which is absorbent in the emission wavelength of the laser (¶ [0129] - The light-absorbing substance is not particularly limited and may be appropriately selected depending on the intended purpose, as long as the light-absorbing substance absorbs light of a certain wavelength. Examples of the light-absorbing substance include colorants, such as pigments and dyes).
Guillemot and Aoto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing ink in Guillemot to incorporate an absorbent pigment as taught by Aoto because using absorbent pigment as light-absorbing material has a wide variety of applications, such as UV curable ink, a type of absorbent pigment, can be used to prevent blocking and simplify a drying step (Aoto ¶ [0159]).
Claims 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot (US 20170368822) in view of Buchner (WO 2011070079), as applied to claim 26, in further view of Stearns (US 20060071983).
Regarding claim 40, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26.
Guillemot does not teach the energy excitation device comprises an acoustic wave generator.
Analogous art Stearns teaches an apparatus for ejecting fluid from a reservoir in or disposed on a substrate (Abstract).
Stearns teaches an energy excitation device comprises an acoustic wave generator (¶ [0084] - the first reservoir 13 is acoustically coupled to the acoustic focusing means 37, such that an acoustic wave is generated by the acoustic radiation generator and directed by the focusing means 37 into the acoustic coupling medium 41).
Guillemot and Stearns are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate an acoustic wave generator as taught by Stearns to facilitate the transfer of energy from the coupling medium into the container (Stearns ¶ [0084]).
Claims 35 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot (US 20170368822) in view of Buchner (WO 2011070079), as applied to claim 26, in further view of Zenou (US 20190322036).
Regarding claim 35, Guillemot does not teach said apparatus comprises a plurality of interaction regions each comprising an inlet and an outlet.
Analogous art Zenou teaches laser jetting of droplets of a viscous material, such as an ink (Abstract).
Zenou further teaches a plurality of interaction regions (Fig. 13) each comprising an inlet and an outlet (¶ [0060] - an inlet port 144a and an outlet port 144b).
Guillemot and Zenou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate a plurality of zones with fluid inlet and outlet as taught by Zenou to adapt for using highly viscous ink during printing (Zenou ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 41, modified Guillemot teaches the additive printing apparatus of claim 26.
Guillemot does not teach the slide comprises a mesa-shaped plate, the upper surface of which defines the region of interaction between the fluid and an excitation and/or observation beam, said slide having, on either side of the plate, a transverse groove, each of said grooves communicating, by a hole, with a duct that passes vertically through the slide and leads into the corresponding groove.
Analogous art Zenou teaches laser jetting of droplets of a viscous material, such as an ink (Abstract).
Zenou teaches the slide comprises a mesa-shaped plate (¶ [0027] - direct printing of droplets onto a substrate in contact with the mesh-like transport screen), the upper surface of which defines the region of interaction between the fluid and an excitation and/or observation beam (¶ [0027] – layer of viscous ink coated on a mesh-like transport screen, ink-coated mesh brought to a working area and a laser is used to heat the ink, causing ink droplets to be ejected), said slide having, on either side of the plate, a transverse groove (FIG. 13 depicts a groove on the mesh-like transport screen), each of said grooves communicating, by a hole, with a duct (¶ [0040] - a collection tank 58) that passes vertically through the slide and leads into the corresponding groove (Fig. 13 depicts fluid passing through the grooves).
PNG
media_image1.png
573
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zenou FIG. 13
Guillemot and Zenou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser printing device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing device in Guillemot to incorporate a mesa-shaped plate and a slide having transverse grooves as taught by Zenou to retain and transport viscous droplet during printing (Zenou ¶ [0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly filed claim(s) 26-41 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754