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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed November 3, 2025, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 17 and 20 are amended and Claim 9 has been cancelled. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending and currently considered in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Kazmer (previously cited, US 20210154916 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Mark discloses a drop-on-demand (DOD) printer (Abstract; para. [0046]), comprising:
an ejector comprising a nozzle (Fig. 7, print head comprising nozzle; see Image 1 below),
the nozzle comprising:
a tank in communication with a source of printing material (Fig. 7, see portion above component 104; see Image 1 below);
a constricted dissipative section in communication with the tank, comprising an elongated internal channel having a diameter of constriction, dc, that is approximately constant along a length of the constricted dissipative section (Fig. 7, elongated internal channel 104 of approximately constant diameter in communication with reservoir above; see also Image 1 below, wherein the constricted dissipative section has an elongated internal channel which feeds from the reservoir of the tank above into the shaping tip below); and
a shaping section comprising a shaping tip in communication with the constricted dissipation section and comprising an exit orifice, the shaping section having a non-continuous diameter, and wherein the shaping section is positioned between the constricted dissipation section and the nozzle end (Fig. 7, end of component 202 which comprises an exit orifice where molten drops exit the nozzle; see Image 1 below, shaping tip and exit orifice portion; shaping tip, which comprises the shaping section, has a non-continuous diameter (is tapered) and therefore the shaping section has a non-continuous diameter; shaping section is below the constricted dissipation section and above the end of the nozzle);
and
a power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power to the ejector, which causes one or more drops of the printing material to be jetted out of the nozzle (Fig. 1; component 106; para. [0039]; vibration powered by a voltage pulse generator reads on ‘power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power; see also para. [0037] wherein a magnetohydrodynamic kinetic drive converts current to pressure pulses to dispense droplets).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Print head/ejector Mark, Fig. 7; annotated
Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle further comprises a porous media made of ceramic or metal foam.
Mikami teaches a similar invention wherein a constricted dissipative section of a drop-on-demand type nozzle comprises a porous media in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see Abstract; see para. [0009]). Mikami teaches the use of foamed sponges having water permeability, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sponge is metallic or ceramic.
Kim similarly teaches supplying ink through a porous medium in order to filter out impurity particles while controlling ink flow impedance, wherein the porous medium is made of porous silicon or sintered metal, and prevents backflow (para. [0037]; [0043]; [0046]; [0095]; [0109]).
Michalowski teaches wherein a porous medium for a nozzle structure porous silicon nitride in order to be metallophobic and usable for printing a metal melt or aluminum melt (Abstract, metal melt; para. [0015], silicon nitride; para. [0029], metallophobic, in particularly aluminophobic, structure 18; para. [0032], porous structure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a porous media, such as a foamed structure, for the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle, as taught by Mikami, for the invention disclosed by Mark. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sintered metal or silicon, as taught by Kim, or further silicon nitride and therefore ceramic, as taught by Michalowksi, for the porous foam structure and invention disclosed by Mark and Mikami.
One would be motivated to comprise a porous foam media in the constrictive dissipative section of the nozzle in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see teaching by Mikami above; see also teaching by Kim above, wherein porous media controls impedance and prevents backflow). One would be motivated to construct the foam of Mikami out of sintered metal or silicon, and further silicon nitride, in order to provide a nozzle structure which is compatible with printing with a metal melt such as molten aluminum (see teaching by Michalowski above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Mark fails to disclose the length of the shaping section.
Kazmer discloses a shaping tip/section comprising a diameter of 0.4mm which converges with a taper angle of 45 degrees to a 0.3mm diameter choke and diverges with a taper angle of 45 degrees to a 0.4mm exit orifice (para. [0144]; Fig. 1, choke 18 and nozzle orifice 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the length of this shaping tip would be 0.1mm (100um) per the geometry of the diameters and the taper angles (see Image 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
381
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2: Shaping tip disclosed by Kazmer (para. [0144]).
Kazmer teaches wherein the converging-diverging shaping tip/section, which comprises the choke, does not affect printing resolution and reduces undesirable drool, thereby improving quality and consistency of the printed part (para. [0145]). The invention of Kazmer is directed to flowable material which exits the nozzle orifice, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the prevention of drool would be applicable to other apparatuses which also comprise flowable material, such as the drop-on-demand printer of Mark.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shaping section of Kazmer, which comprises a length of 100um and a choke with 45 degree converging and diverging taper angles, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to reduce undesirable drool, thereby improving quality and consistency of the printed part, and while preserving the printing resolution.
Mark is silent towards the diameter and the length of the constricted dissipative section.
Rudolph teaches a constricted dissipative section for a 3D printer, wherein the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipative section is 0.3mm in order to align fillers in a composite material (para. [0021]; Fig. 2, constricted dissipative section 330; para. [0006]). Rudolph further teaches wherein the cross-section of the nozzle orifice is larger than the constricted dissipative section in order to partially reorient the filler material after the constricted dissipative section, and that changing the shape of the orifice can tailor the amount of realignment of filler particles (Fig. 2, portion 340; para. [0020] and para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipation section to be 0.300mm, and to have had a cross-sectional area of the constricted dissipation section which is smaller than that of the orifice, as taught by Rudolph, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to use composite materials and subsequently tailor the orientation of the filler material within the composite material (see teaching by Rudolph above). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that a 0.300mm diameter constricted dissipation section (for circular cross-section) would produce a cross-sectional area smaller than that of a cross-sectional area from a 0.500mm diameter orifice. Thus, Mark and Rudolph disclose wherein the constricted dissipation section comprises a cross-sectional area which is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the orifice, as claimed.
Gibson teaches wherein a throat portion (see Fig. 13B and 13C, wherein throat portion is a constrictive dissipative section – narrower than preceding section and the orifice diameter) is 250-400um in order to adjust the jetting dynamics by increasing the fluid inertance in the nozzle (para. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the constrictive dissipative section be 250-400um, as taught by Gibson, for the invention disclosed by Mark and Rudolph, in order to increase fluid inertance in the nozzle and adjust jetting dynamics (see teaching above). A length of 250-400um reads on the claimed 400um.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose a constricted dissipative section which is three-dimensional and has the claimed diameter and length of constriction (see above), and therefore comprises a (A) cross-sectional area, a (S) perimeter of the constricted dissipative section, and a (δ) characteristic length (height) to which fluid may form a fluid boundary layer inside the dissipative section.
Mark is silent towards relaxation time, but the nozzle geometry of Mark and Rudolph comprises the claimed diameter of constriction, as well as non-zero (definitive) values for the cross-sectional area, perimeter of the constricted dissipative section and characteristic length. Therefore, fluid in the dissipative section would comprise a relaxation time (τ) corresponding to this nozzle geometry, and be proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section, and proportional to dc2, as claimed, because the nozzle structure is the same as claimed. Thus, the constricted dissipation section and apparatus of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time.
Additionally, the constricted dissipative section may also be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time by modification, for example, of the viscosity or surface tension of the liquid, or by tuning the control signals (see Mark, para. [0037], wherein the shape and size of the jetting orifice, the surface tension and viscosity of the material, the wetting interaction between the metal and the orifice, and the configuration and timing of the modulation signal from the controller, may be tuned).
For example, Paton teaches a drop on demand printer wherein the relaxation time of the liquid in the nozzle is the same or less than the period of the pulses, and wherein the period of the pulses is 2-20 µsec, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Chen teaches wherein liquids with high electrical conductivities have very short relaxation times in the EHD jetting process (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the apparatus of Mark and Rudolph to comprise a relaxation time within the range of 2-20 µsec, as taught by Paton, such as by modifying the electrical conductivity of the printing medium, as taught by Chen, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (see teaching by Paton above).
Further, the limitation regarding “relaxation time” is directed to a feature of the material or article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e., the relaxation time is a limitation directed to the fluid). The "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Additionally, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose the claimed nozzle structure and therefore nozzle configuration thereof, and all structural limitations have been met. Thus, the nozzle of Mark, Rudolph and Gibson would be configured to produce the claimed relaxation time, which is also taught by Paton, and one which is proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section and proportional to dc2, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Mark discloses wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is configured to obstruct fluid flow (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above; see para. [0046]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is configured to obstruct fluid flow because the diameter at the top of the section is substantially smaller than the diameter which is fluid with the tank, and because external forces are required for drop formation, rather than there being an uncontrolled stream of liquid from the reservoir (para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mark discloses wherein the elongated internal channel is cylindrical (para. [0046]; tube reads on cylindrical).
Regarding Claim 4, Mark discloses wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is axisymmetric and has a diameter less than a diameter of the tank (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above wherein component 104 and shaping tip/exit orifice are aligned and symmetric about the vertical axis; see wherein tank reservoir diameter above is much larger than the diameter of component 104).
Regarding Claim 5, Mark discloses wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is axisymmetric and has a diameter less than a diameter of the shaping tip (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above wherein component 104 and shaping tip/exit orifice are aligned and symmetric about the vertical axis; see wherein multiple positions along the shaping tip comprise diameters which are much larger than the diameter of component 104 directly above).
Regarding Claim 11, Mark discloses wherein the exit orifice of the shaping tip of the nozzle is cylindrical (para. [0052]; tube reads on cylindrical).
Regarding Claim 13, Mark discloses wherein the nozzle is configured to eject a droplet by operating a droplet generation event followed by a droplet ejection event (see Abstract; see Fig. 7; para. [0039]). The apparatus of Mark would be capable of ejecting a droplet by a generation event followed by a droplet ejection event.
Regarding Claim 14, Mark discloses wherein the printing material comprises a polymer, polymer composite, or a combination thereof (para. [0072]). Further, the claims are directed towards an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, the limitation regarding “the printing material” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. T
In the instant case, he apparatus of Mark reads on the claimed structure and is capable of using printing material comprising a polymer, polymer composite, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 15 and Claim 21, Mark discloses wherein the printing material comprises metal, metallic alloys, or a combination thereof (Abstract). Further, the claims are directed towards an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, the limitation regarding “the printing material” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
In the instant case, the apparatus of Mark reads on the claimed structure and is capable of using printing material comprising a metal, metallic alloys, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 16, Mark discloses wherein the printing material comprises aluminum, aluminum alloys, or a combination thereof (para. [0035]). Further, the claims are directed towards an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, the limitation regarding “the printing material” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
In the instant case, the apparatus of Mark reads on the claimed structure and is capable of using printing material comprising aluminum, aluminum alloys, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 17, Mark discloses a drop-on-demand (DOD) printer (Abstract; para. [0046]), comprising:
an ejector comprising a nozzle (Fig. 7, print head comprising nozzle; see Image 1 above),
the nozzle comprising:
a tank in communication with a source of printing material (Fig. 7, see portion above component 104; see Image 1 above);
a constricted dissipative section in communication with the tank, comprising an elongated internal channel having a diameter of constriction, dc, that is approximately constant along a length of the constricted dissipative section (Fig. 7, elongated internal channel 104 of approximately constant diameter in communication with reservoir above; see also Image 1 above, wherein the constricted dissipative section has an elongated internal channel which feeds from the reservoir of the tank above into the shaping tip below); and
a shaping section comprising a shaping tip in communication with the constricted dissipation section and comprising an exit orifice, the shaping section having a non-continuous diameter, and wherein the shaping section is positioned between the constricted dissipation section and the nozzle end (Fig. 7, end of component 202 which comprises an exit orifice where molten drops exit the nozzle; see Image 1 below, shaping tip and exit orifice portion; shaping tip, which comprises the shaping section, has a non-continuous diameter (is tapered) and therefore the shaping section has a non-continuous diameter; shaping section is below the constricted dissipation section and above the end of the nozzle); and
a power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power to the ejector, which causes one or more drops of the printing material to be jetted out of the nozzle (Fig. 1; component 106; para. [0039]; vibration powered by a voltage pulse generator reads on ‘power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power; see also para. [0037] wherein a magnetohydrodynamic kinetic drive converts current to pressure pulses to dispense droplets); and
wherein the nozzle is configured to eject a droplet by operating a droplet generation event followed by a droplet ejection event (see Abstract; see Fig. 7; para. [0039]). The apparatus of Mark would be capable of ejecting a droplet by a generation event followed by a droplet ejection event.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Print head/ejector Mark, Fig. 7; annotated
Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle further comprises a porous media made of ceramic or metal foam.
Mikami teaches a similar invention wherein a constricted dissipative section of a drop-on-demand type nozzle comprises a porous media in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see Abstract; see para. [0009]). Mikami teaches the use of foamed sponges having water permeability, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sponge is metallic or ceramic.
Kim similarly teaches supplying ink through a porous medium in order to filter out impurity particles while controlling ink flow impedance, wherein the porous medium is made of porous silicon or sintered metal, and prevents backflow (para. [0037]; [0043]; [0046]; [0095]; [0109]).
Michalowski teaches wherein a porous medium for a nozzle structure porous silicon nitride in order to be metallophobic and usable for printing a metal melt or aluminum melt (Abstract, metal melt; para. [0015], silicon nitride; para. [0029], metallophobic, in particularly aluminophobic, structure 18; para. [0032], porous structure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a porous media, such as a foamed structure, for the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle, as taught by Mikami, for the invention disclosed by Mark. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sintered metal or silicon, as taught by Kim, or further silicon nitride and therefore ceramic, as taught by Michalowksi, for the porous foam structure and invention disclosed by Mark and Mikami.
One would be motivated to comprise a porous foam media in the constrictive dissipative section of the nozzle in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see teaching by Mikami above; see also teaching by Kim above, wherein porous media controls impedance and prevents backflow). One would be motivated to construct the foam of Mikami out of sintered metal or silicon, and further silicon nitride, in order to provide a nozzle structure which is compatible with printing with a metal melt such as molten aluminum (see teaching by Michalowski above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Mark fails to disclose the length of the shaping section.
Kazmer discloses a shaping tip/section comprising a diameter of 0.4mm which converges with a taper angle of 45 degrees to a 0.3mm diameter choke and diverges with a taper angle of 45 degrees to a 0.4mm exit orifice (para. [0144]; Fig. 1, choke 18 and nozzle orifice 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the length of this shaping tip would be 0.1mm (100um) per the geometry of the diameters and the taper angles (see Image 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
381
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2: Shaping tip disclosed by Kazmer (para. [0144]).
Kazmer teaches wherein the converging-diverging shaping tip/section, which comprises the choke, does not affect printing resolution and reduces undesirable drool, thereby improving quality and consistency of the printed part (para. [0145]). The invention of Kazmer is directed to flowable material which exits the nozzle orifice, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the prevention of drool would be applicable to other apparatuses which also comprise flowable material, such as the drop- on-demand printer of Mark.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shaping section of Kazmer, which comprises a length of 100um and a choke with 45 degree converging and diverging taper angles, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to reduce undesirable drool, thereby improving quality and consistency of the printed part, and while preserving the printing resolution.
Mark is silent towards the diameter and the length of the constricted dissipative section.
Rudolph teaches a constricted dissipative section for a 3D printer, wherein the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipative section is 0.3mm in order to align fillers in a composite material (para. [0021]; Fig. 2, constricted dissipative section 330; para. [0006]). Rudolph further teaches wherein the cross-section of the nozzle orifice is larger than the constricted dissipative section in order to partially reorient the filler material after the constricted dissipative section, and that changing the shape of the orifice can tailor the amount of realignment of filler particles (Fig. 2, portion 340; para. [0020] and para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipation section to be 0.300mm, and to have had a cross-sectional area of the constricted dissipation section which is smaller than that of the orifice, as taught by Rudolph, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to use composite materials and subsequently tailor the orientation of the filler material within the composite material (see teaching by Rudolph above). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that a 0.300mm diameter constricted dissipation section (for circular cross-section) would produce a cross-sectional area smaller than that of a cross-sectional area from a 0.500mm diameter orifice. Thus Mark and Rudolph disclose wherein the constricted dissipation section comprises a cross-sectional area which is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the orifice, as claimed.
Gibson teaches wherein a throat portion (see Fig. 13B and 13C, wherein throat portion is a constrictive dissipative section – narrower than preceding section and the orifice diameter) is 250-400um in order to adjust the jetting dynamics by increasing the fluid inertance in the nozzle (para. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the constrictive dissipative section be 250-400um, as taught by Gibson, for the invention disclosed by Mark and Rudolph, in order to increase fluid inertance in the nozzle and adjust jetting dynamics (see teaching above). A length of 250-400um reads on the claimed 400um.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose a constricted dissipative section which is three-dimensional and has the claimed diameter and length of constriction (see above), and therefore comprises a (A) cross-sectional area, a (S) perimeter of the constricted dissipative section, and a (δ) characteristic length (height) to which fluid may form a fluid boundary layer inside the dissipative section.
Mark is silent towards relaxation time, but the nozzle geometry of Mark and Rudolph comprises the claimed diameter of constriction, as well as non-zero (definitive) values for the cross-sectional area, perimeter of the constricted dissipative section and characteristic length. Therefore, fluid in the dissipative section would comprise a relaxation time (τ) corresponding to this nozzle geometry, and be proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section, and proportional to dc2, as claimed, because the nozzle structure is the same as claimed. Thus, the constricted dissipation section and apparatus of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time.
Additionally, the constricted dissipative section may also be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time by modification, for example, of the viscosity or surface tension of the liquid, or by tuning the control signals (see Mark, para. [0037], wherein the shape and size of the jetting orifice, the surface tension and viscosity of the material, the wetting interaction between the metal and the orifice, and the configuration and timing of the modulation signal from the controller, may be tuned).
For example, Paton teaches a drop on demand printer wherein the relaxation time of the liquid in the nozzle is the same or less than the period of the pulses, and wherein the period of the pulses is 2-20 µsec, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Chen teaches wherein liquids with high electrical conductivities have very short relaxation times in the EHD jetting process (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the apparatus of Mark and Rudolph to comprise a relaxation time within the range of 2-20 µsec, as taught by Paton, such as by modifying the electrical conductivity of the printing medium, as taught by Chen, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (see teaching by Paton above).
Further, the limitation regarding “relaxation time” is directed to a feature of the material or article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e., the relaxation time is a limitation directed to the fluid). The "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Additionally, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose the claimed nozzle structure and therefore nozzle configuration thereof, and all structural limitations have been met. Thus, the nozzle of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to produce the claimed relaxation time, which is also taught by Paton, and one which is proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section and proportional to dc2, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, Mark discloses wherein the dissipative section comprises:
an axisymmetric portion, a diameter less than a diameter of the tank, and a diameter less than a diameter of the shaping tip (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above wherein component 104 and shaping tip/exit orifice are aligned and symmetric about the vertical axis; see wherein tank reservoir diameter above is much larger than the diameter of component 104; see wherein multiple positions along the shaping tip comprise diameters which are much larger than the diameter of component 104 located directly above the shaping tip).
Regarding Claim 20, Mark discloses a drop-on-demand (DOD) printer (Abstract; para. [0046]), comprising:
an ejector comprising an array of nozzles, the array of nozzles comprising: a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 16 showing multiple nozzles; para. [0077] wherein multiple print heads are parallelized (arrayed) to provide higher throughput),
each nozzle (Fig. 7; Image 1 above) comprising:
a tank in communication with a source of printing material (Fig. 7, see reservoir portion above component 104; see Image 1 above, tank);
a constricted dissipative section in communication with the tank, comprising an elongated internal channel having a having a diameter of constriction, dc, that is approximately constant along a length of the constricted dissipative section (Fig. 7, elongated internal channel 104 of approximately constant diameter in communication with reservoir above; see also Image 1 above, wherein the constricted dissipative section has an elongated internal channel which feeds from the reservoir of the tank above into the shaping tip below); and
a shaping section comprising a shaping tip in communication with the constricted dissipation section and comprising an exit orifice, the shaping section having a non-continuous diameter, and wherein the shaping section is positioned between the constricted dissipation section and the nozzle end (Fig. 7, end of component 202 which comprises an exit orifice where molten drops exit the nozzle; see Image 1 below, shaping tip and exit orifice portion; shaping tip, which comprises the shaping section, has a non-continuous diameter (is tapered) and therefore the shaping section has a non-continuous diameter; shaping section is below the constricted dissipation section and above the end of the nozzle); and
a power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power to the ejector, which causes one or more drops of the printing material to be jetted out of the nozzle (Fig. 1; component 106; para. [0039]; vibration powered by a voltage pulse generator reads on ‘power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power; see also para. [0037] wherein a magnetohydrodynamic kinetic drive converts current to pressure pulses to dispense droplets); and
wherein the nozzle is configured to eject a droplet by operating a droplet generation event followed by a droplet ejection event (see Abstract; see Fig. 7; para. [0039]). The apparatus of Mark would be capable of ejecting a droplet by a generation event followed by a droplet ejection event.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Print head/ejector Mark, Fig. 7; annotated
Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle further comprises a porous media made of ceramic or metal foam.
Mikami teaches a similar invention wherein a constricted dissipative section of a drop-on-demand type nozzle comprises a porous media in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see Abstract; see para. [0009]). Mikami teaches the use of foamed sponges having water permeability, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sponge is metallic or ceramic.
Kim similarly teaches supplying ink through a porous medium in order to filter out impurity particles while controlling ink flow impedance, wherein the porous medium is made of porous silicon or sintered metal, and prevents backflow (para. [0037]; [0043]; [0046]; [0095]; [0109]).
Michalowski teaches wherein a porous medium for a nozzle structure porous silicon nitride in order to be metallophobic and usable for printing a metal melt or aluminum melt (Abstract, metal melt; para. [0015], silicon nitride; para. [0029], metallophobic, in particularly aluminophobic, structure 18; para. [0032], porous structure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a porous media, such as a foamed structure, for the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle, as taught by Mikami, for the invention disclosed by Mark. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sintered metal or silicon, as taught by Kim, or further silicon nitride and therefore ceramic, as taught by Michalowksi, for the porous foam structure and invention disclosed by Mark and Mikami.
One would be motivated to comprise a porous foam media in the constrictive dissipative section of the nozzle in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see teaching by Mikami above; see also teaching by Kim above, wherein porous media controls impedance and prevents backflow). One would be motivated to construct the foam of Mikami out of sintered metal or silicon, and further silicon nitride, in order to provide a nozzle structure which is compatible with printing with a metal melt such as molten aluminum (see teaching by Michalowski above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Mark fails to disclose the length of the shaping section.
Kazmer discloses a shaping tip/section comprising a diameter of 0.4mm which converges with a taper angle of 45 degrees to a 0.3mm diameter choke and diverges with a taper angle of 45 degrees to a 0.4mm exit orifice (para. [0144]; Fig. 1, choke 18 and nozzle orifice 19). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the length of this shaping tip would be 0.1mm (100um) per the geometry of the diameters and the taper angles (see Image 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
381
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2: Shaping tip disclosed by Kazmer (para. [0144]).
Kazmer teaches wherein the converging-diverging shaping tip/section, which comprises the choke, does not affect printing resolution and reduces undesirable drool, thereby improving quality and consistency of the printed part (para. [0145]). The invention of Kazmer is directed to flowable material which exits the nozzle orifice, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the prevention of drool would be applicable to other apparatuses which also comprise flowable material, such as the drop- on-demand printer of Mark.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shaping section of Kazmer, which comprises a length of 100um and a choke with 45 degree converging and diverging taper angles, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to reduce undesirable drool, thereby improving quality and consistency of the printed part, and while preserving the printing resolution.
Mark is silent towards the diameter and the length of the constricted dissipative section.
Rudolph teaches a constricted dissipative section for a 3D printer, wherein the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipative section is 0.3mm in order to align fillers in a composite material (para. [0021]; Fig. 2, constricted dissipative section 330; para. [0006]). Rudolph further teaches wherein the cross-section of the nozzle orifice is larger than the constricted dissipative section in order to partially reorient the filler material after the constricted dissipative section, and that changing the shape of the orifice can tailor the amount of realignment of filler particles (Fig. 2, portion 340; para. [0020] and para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipation section to be 0.300mm, and to have had a cross-sectional area of the constricted dissipation section which is smaller than that of the orifice, as taught by Rudolph, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to use composite materials and subsequently tailor the orientation of the filler material within the composite material (see teaching by Rudolph above). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that a 0.300mm diameter constricted dissipation section (for circular cross-section) would produce a cross-sectional area smaller than that of a cross-sectional area from a 0.500mm diameter orifice. Thus Mark and Rudolph disclose wherein the constricted dissipation section comprises a cross-sectional area which is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the orifice, as claimed.
Gibson teaches wherein a throat portion (see Fig. 13B and 13C, wherein throat portion is a constrictive dissipative section – narrower than preceding section and the orifice diameter) is 250-400um in order to adjust the jetting dynamics by increasing the fluid inertance in the nozzle (para. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the constrictive dissipative section be 250-400um, as taught by Gibson, for the invention disclosed by Mark and Rudolph, in order to increase fluid inertance in the nozzle and adjust jetting dynamics (see teaching above). A length of 250-400um reads on the claimed 400um.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose a constricted dissipative section which is three-dimensional and has the claimed diameter and length of constriction (see above), and therefore comprises a (A) cross-sectional area, a (S) perimeter of the constricted dissipative section, and a (δ) characteristic length (height) to which fluid may form a fluid boundary layer inside the dissipative section.
Mark is silent towards relaxation time, but the nozzle geometry of Mark and Rudolph comprises the claimed diameter of constriction, as well as non-zero (definitive) values for the cross-sectional area, perimeter of the constricted dissipative section and characteristic length. Therefore, fluid in the dissipative section would comprise a relaxation time (τ) corresponding to this nozzle geometry, and be proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section, and proportional to dc2, as claimed, because the nozzle structure is the same as claimed. Thus, the constricted dissipation section and apparatus of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time.
Additionally, the constricted dissipative section may also be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time by modification, for example, of the viscosity or surface tension of the liquid, or by tuning the control signals (see Mark, para. [0037], wherein the shape and size of the jetting orifice, the surface tension and viscosity of the material, the wetting interaction between the metal and the orifice, and the configuration and timing of the modulation signal from the controller, may be tuned).
For example, Paton teaches a drop on demand printer wherein the relaxation time of the liquid in the nozzle is the same or less than the period of the pulses, and wherein the period of the pulses is 2-20 µsec, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Chen teaches wherein liquids with high electrical conductivities have very short relaxation times in the EHD jetting process (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the apparatus of Mark and Rudolph to comprise a relaxation time within the range of 2-20 µsec, as taught by Paton, such as by modifying the electrical conductivity of the printing medium, as taught by Chen, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (see teaching by Paton above).
Further, the limitation regarding “relaxation time” is directed to a feature of the material or article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e., the relaxation time is a limitation directed to the fluid). The "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Additionally, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose the claimed nozzle structure and therefore nozzle configuration thereof, and all structural limitations have been met. Thus, the nozzle of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to produce the claimed relaxation time, which is also taught by Paton, and one which is proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section and proportional to dc2, as claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Kazmer (previously cited, US 20210154916 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Xu (previously cited, US 20100053270 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Mark fails to discloses wherein the nozzle further comprises a tapered transition between the constricted dissipative section and the shaping tip.
Xu teaches wherein a nozzle comprises a tapered transition between the constricted dissipative section and the shaping tip in order to reduce friction, thereby preventing build-up of particles and contaminants and improving nozzle life span (see Fig. 2A-2B; para. [0029]-[0030]; para. [0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a tapered transition between the constricted dissipative section and the shaping tip, as taught by Xu, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to reduce friction, thereby preventing build-up of particles and contaminants and improving nozzle life span (see teaching above).
Claims 6-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Kazmer (previously cited, US 20210154916 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 17 above, respectively, in further view of Te (previously cited, US 20150147421 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 7, Mark does not disclose wherein (Claim 6) the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels, or further, wherein (Claim 7) the at least three internal cylindrical channels have substantially the same diameter.
Te discloses a drop-on-demand printer (Abstract) comprising a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle (Fig. 14, constricted dissipative section 28) which further comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels having substantially the same diameter in order to provide material deposition both by drop-by-demand and by rapid deposition (see Fig. 11 and 12, internal cylindrical channels 28; para. [0076]-[0077] and para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the (Claim 6) at least internal cylindrical channels of Te, comprising (Claim 7) substantially the same diameter, as also taught by Te, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to utilize both drop-on-demand deposition and rapid deposition within the same nozzle configuration.
Regarding Claim 8, Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section comprises at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another.
Te discloses a drop-on-demand printer (Abstract) comprising a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle (Fig. 14, constricted dissipative section 28) which further comprises a plurality of dispensing passages (see Fig. 11 and 12, dispensing passages 42), where in the dispensing passages may comprise a profile in an “X” shape arrangement (para. [0077]), in order to provide material deposition both by drop-by-demand and by rapid deposition (para. [0090]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate than an “X” shape reads on two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the constricted dissipative section to have channels with an “X” shape arrangement, as taught by Te, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to utilize both drop-on-demand deposition and rapid deposition within the same nozzle configuration.
Regarding Claim 19, Mark does not disclose wherein the dissipative section of the nozzle comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels having substantially the same diameter.
Te discloses a drop-on-demand printer (Abstract) comprising a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle (Fig. 14, constricted dissipative section 28) which further comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels having substantially the same diameter in order to provide material deposition both by drop-by-demand and by rapid deposition (see Fig. 11 and 12, internal cylindrical channels 28; para. [0076]-[0077] and para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the constricted dissipative section to have at least internal cylindrical channels comprising substantially the same diameter, as also taught by Te, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to utilize both drop-on-demand deposition and rapid deposition within the same nozzle configuration.
Claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Kazmer (previously cited, US 20210154916 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, respectively, in further view of Ozdemir (previously cited, US 20200376507 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section comprises at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another.
Ozdemir discloses a similar an invention (Abstract; see Fig. 5) wherein a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle head comprises at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another in order to improve pressure and temperature control (see Fig. 7, perpendicular and intersecting channels 773a-773f; see para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the constricted dissipative section to have at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another, as taught by Ozdemir, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to improve pressure and temperature control of the build material while dispensing (see teaching by Ozdemir above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Kazmer (previously cited, US 20210154916 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to Claim 11 above, respectively, in further view of Sachs (previously cited, US 20040217186 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Mark does not disclose wherein the radius of curvature of the exit orifice is less than 10 percent of a diameter of the exit orifice.
Sachs discloses a similar invention wherein the radius of curvature of an exit orifice for a drop-on-demand printer is less than 10 percent of a diameter of the exit orifice in order to reduce film and debris build-up (para. [0107]-[0108]; Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the relationship 2q/D≤0.1, wherein q is the radius of curvature of the exit orifice and D is a diameter of the exit orifice, reads on the claimed values (i.e., q≤0.05D, or less than or equal to 5% of the diameter of the exit orifice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a radius of curvature of the exit orifice of less than 10 percent of a diameter of the exit orifice, as taught by Sachs, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to balance ease of manufacturing with film and debris build-up (see teaching by Sachs above).
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-18 and 20-21 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Mark discloses a drop-on-demand (DOD) printer (Abstract; para. [0046]), comprising:
an ejector comprising a nozzle (Fig. 7, print head comprising nozzle; see Image 1 below),
the nozzle comprising:
a tank in communication with a source of printing material (Fig. 7, see portion above component 104; see Image 1 below);
a constricted dissipative section in communication with the tank, comprising an elongated internal channel having a diameter of constriction, dc, that is approximately constant along a length of the constricted dissipative section (Fig. 7, elongated internal channel 104 of approximately constant diameter in communication with reservoir above; see also Image 1 below, wherein the constricted dissipative section has an elongated internal channel which feeds from the reservoir of the tank above into the shaping tip below); and
a shaping section comprising a shaping tip in communication with the constricted dissipation section and comprising an exit orifice, the shaping section having a non-continuous diameter, and wherein the shaping section is positioned between the constricted dissipation section and the nozzle end (Fig. 7, end of component 202 which comprises an exit orifice where molten drops exit the nozzle; see Image 1 below, shaping tip and exit orifice portion; shaping tip, which comprises the shaping section, has a non-continuous diameter (is tapered) and therefore the shaping section has a non-continuous diameter; shaping section is below the constricted dissipation section and above the end of the nozzle);
and
a power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power to the ejector, which causes one or more drops of the printing material to be jetted out of the nozzle (Fig. 1; component 106; para. [0039]; vibration powered by a voltage pulse generator reads on ‘power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power; see also para. [0037] wherein a magnetohydrodynamic kinetic drive converts current to pressure pulses to dispense droplets).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Print head/ejector Mark, Fig. 7; annotated
Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle further comprises a porous media made of ceramic or metal foam.
Mikami teaches a similar invention wherein a constricted dissipative section of a drop-on-demand type nozzle comprises a porous media in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see Abstract; see para. [0009]). Mikami teaches the use of foamed sponges having water permeability, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sponge is metallic or ceramic.
Kim similarly teaches supplying ink through a porous medium in order to filter out impurity particles while controlling ink flow impedance, wherein the porous medium is made of porous silicon or sintered metal, and prevents backflow (para. [0037]; [0043]; [0046]; [0095]; [0109]).
Michalowski teaches wherein a porous medium for a nozzle structure porous silicon nitride in order to be metallophobic and usable for printing a metal melt or aluminum melt (Abstract, metal melt; para. [0015], silicon nitride; para. [0029], metallophobic, in particularly aluminophobic, structure 18; para. [0032], porous structure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a porous media, such as a foamed structure, for the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle, as taught by Mikami, for the invention disclosed by Mark. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sintered metal or silicon, as taught by Kim, or further silicon nitride and therefore ceramic, as taught by Michalowksi, for the porous foam structure and invention disclosed by Mark and Mikami.
One would be motivated to comprise a porous foam media in the constrictive dissipative section of the nozzle in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see teaching by Mikami above; see also teaching by Kim above, wherein porous media controls impedance and prevents backflow). One would be motivated to construct the foam of Mikami out of sintered metal or silicon, and further silicon nitride, in order to provide a nozzle structure which is compatible with printing with a metal melt such as molten aluminum (see teaching by Michalowski above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Mark fails to disclose the length of the shaping section, and is silent towards the diameter of constriction and the length of the constricted dissipative section.
Rudolph teaches a constricted dissipative section for a 3D printer, wherein the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipative section is 0.3mm in order to align fillers in a composite material (para. [0021]; Fig. 2, constricted dissipative section 330; para. [0006]). Rudolph further teaches wherein the cross-section of the nozzle orifice is larger than the constricted dissipative section in order to partially reorient the filler material after the constricted dissipative section, and that changing the shape of the orifice can tailor the amount of realignment of filler particles (Fig. 2, portion 340; para. [0020] and para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipation section to be 0.300mm, and to have had a cross-sectional area of the constricted dissipation section which is smaller than that of the orifice, as taught by Rudolph, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to use composite materials and subsequently tailor the orientation of the filler material within the composite material (see teaching by Rudolph above). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that a 0.300mm diameter constricted dissipation section (for circular cross-section) would produce a cross-sectional area smaller than that of a cross-sectional area from a 0.500mm diameter orifice. Thus, Mark and Rudolph disclose wherein the constricted dissipation section comprises a cross-sectional area which is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the orifice, as claimed.
Further, because Rudolph teaches wherein the length of the expansion region (shaping section/orifice exit) affects the degree of fiber orientation, Rudolph teaches that the length of the shaping section is a results-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have comprised a shaping section length of 100um as claimed in order to modify the fiber orientation, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
Gibson teaches wherein a throat portion (see Fig. 13B and 13C, wherein throat portion is a constrictive dissipative section – narrower than preceding section and the orifice diameter) is 250-400um in order to adjust the jetting dynamics by increasing the fluid inertance in the nozzle (para. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the constrictive dissipative section be 250-400um, as taught by Gibson, for the invention disclosed by Mark and Rudolph, in order to increase fluid inertance in the nozzle and adjust jetting dynamics (see teaching above). A length of 250-400um reads on the claimed 400um.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose a constricted dissipative section which is three-dimensional and has the claimed diameter and length of constriction (see above), and therefore comprises a (A) cross-sectional area, a (S) perimeter of the constricted dissipative section, and a (δ) characteristic length (height) to which fluid may form a fluid boundary layer inside the dissipative section.
Mark is silent towards relaxation time, but the nozzle geometry of Mark and Rudolph comprises the claimed diameter of constriction, as well as non-zero (definitive) values for the cross-sectional area, perimeter of the constricted dissipative section and characteristic length. Therefore, fluid in the dissipative section would comprise a relaxation time (τ) corresponding to this nozzle geometry, and be proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section, and proportional to dc2, as claimed, because the nozzle structure is the same as claimed. Thus, the constricted dissipation section and apparatus of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time.
Additionally, the constricted dissipative section may also be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time by modification, for example, of the viscosity or surface tension of the liquid, or by tuning the control signals (see Mark, para. [0037], wherein the shape and size of the jetting orifice, the surface tension and viscosity of the material, the wetting interaction between the metal and the orifice, and the configuration and timing of the modulation signal from the controller, may be tuned).
For example, Paton teaches a drop on demand printer wherein the relaxation time of the liquid in the nozzle is the same or less than the period of the pulses, and wherein the period of the pulses is 2-20 µsec, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Chen teaches wherein liquids with high electrical conductivities have very short relaxation times in the EHD jetting process (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the apparatus of Mark and Rudolph to comprise a relaxation time within the range of 2-20 µsec, as taught by Paton, such as by modifying the electrical conductivity of the printing medium, as taught by Chen, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (see teaching by Paton above).
Further, the limitation regarding “relaxation time” is directed to a feature of the material or article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e., the relaxation time is a limitation directed to the fluid). The "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Additionally, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose the claimed nozzle structure and therefore nozzle configuration thereof, and all structural limitations have been met. Thus, the nozzle of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to produce the claimed relaxation time, which is also taught by Paton, and one which is proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section and proportional to dc2, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Mark discloses wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is configured to obstruct fluid flow (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above; see para. [0046]). Additionally, One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is configured to obstruct fluid flow because the diameter at the top of the section is substantially smaller than the diameter which is fluid with the tank, and because external forces are required for drop formation, rather than there being an uncontrolled stream of liquid from the reservoir (para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mark discloses wherein the elongated internal channel is cylindrical (para. [0046]; tube reads on cylindrical).
Regarding Claim 4, Mark discloses wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is axisymmetric and has a diameter less than a diameter of the tank (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above wherein component 104 and shaping tip/exit orifice are aligned and symmetric about the vertical axis; see wherein tank reservoir diameter above is much larger than the diameter of component 104).
Regarding Claim 5, Mark discloses wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle is axisymmetric and has a diameter less than a diameter of the shaping tip (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above wherein component 104 and shaping tip/exit orifice are aligned and symmetric about the vertical axis; see wherein multiple positions along the shaping tip comprise diameters which are much larger than the diameter of component 104 directly above).
Regarding Claim 11, Mark discloses wherein the exit orifice of the shaping tip of the nozzle is cylindrical (para. [0052]; tube reads on cylindrical).
Regarding Claim 13, Mark discloses wherein the nozzle is configured to eject a droplet by operating a droplet generation event followed by a droplet ejection event (see Abstract; see Fig. 7; para. [0039]). The apparatus of Mark would be capable of ejecting a droplet by a generation event followed by a droplet ejection event.
Regarding Claim 14, Mark discloses wherein the printing material comprises a polymer, polymer composite, or a combination thereof (para. [0072]). Further, the claims are directed towards an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, the limitation regarding “the printing material” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. T
In the instant case, he apparatus of Mark reads on the claimed structure and is capable of using printing material comprising a polymer, polymer composite, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 15 and Claim 21, Mark discloses wherein the printing material comprises metal, metallic alloys, or a combination thereof (Abstract). Further, the claims are directed towards an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, the limitation regarding “the printing material” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
In the instant case, the apparatus of Mark reads on the claimed structure and is capable of using printing material comprising a metal, metallic alloys, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 16, Mark discloses wherein the printing material comprises aluminum, aluminum alloys, or a combination thereof (para. [0035]). Further, the claims are directed towards an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Additionally, the limitation regarding “the printing material” is directed to a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
In the instant case, the apparatus of Mark reads on the claimed structure and is capable of using printing material comprising aluminum, aluminum alloys, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 17, Mark discloses a drop-on-demand (DOD) printer (Abstract; para. [0046]), comprising:
an ejector comprising a nozzle (Fig. 7, print head comprising nozzle; see Image 1 above),
the nozzle comprising:
a tank in communication with a source of printing material (Fig. 7, see portion above component 104; see Image 1 above);
a constricted dissipative section in communication with the tank, comprising an elongated internal channel having a diameter of constriction, dc, that is approximately constant along a length of the constricted dissipative section (Fig. 7, elongated internal channel 104 of approximately constant diameter in communication with reservoir above; see also Image 1 above, wherein the constricted dissipative section has an elongated internal channel which feeds from the reservoir of the tank above into the shaping tip below); and
a shaping section comprising a shaping tip in communication with the constricted dissipation section and comprising an exit orifice, the shaping section having a non-continuous diameter, and wherein the shaping section is positioned between the constricted dissipation section and the nozzle end (Fig. 7, end of component 202 which comprises an exit orifice where molten drops exit the nozzle; see Image 1 below, shaping tip and exit orifice portion; shaping tip, which comprises the shaping section, has a non-continuous diameter (is tapered) and therefore the shaping section has a non-continuous diameter; shaping section is below the constricted dissipation section and above the end of the nozzle);
and
a power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power to the ejector, which causes one or more drops of the printing material to be jetted out of the nozzle (Fig. 1; component 106; para. [0039]; vibration powered by a voltage pulse generator reads on ‘power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power; see also para. [0037] wherein a magnetohydrodynamic kinetic drive converts current to pressure pulses to dispense droplets); and
wherein the nozzle is configured to eject a droplet by operating a droplet generation event followed by a droplet ejection event (see Abstract; see Fig. 7; para. [0039]). The apparatus of Mark would be capable of ejecting a droplet by a generation event followed by a droplet ejection event.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Print head/ejector Mark, Fig. 7; annotated
Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle further comprises a porous media made of ceramic or metal foam.
Mikami teaches a similar invention wherein a constricted dissipative section of a drop-on-demand type nozzle comprises a porous media in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see Abstract; see para. [0009]). Mikami teaches the use of foamed sponges having water permeability, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sponge is metallic or ceramic.
Kim similarly teaches supplying ink through a porous medium in order to filter out impurity particles while controlling ink flow impedance, wherein the porous medium is made of porous silicon or sintered metal, and prevents backflow (para. [0037]; [0043]; [0046]; [0095]; [0109]).
Michalowski teaches wherein a porous medium for a nozzle structure porous silicon nitride in order to be metallophobic and usable for printing a metal melt or aluminum melt (Abstract, metal melt; para. [0015], silicon nitride; para. [0029], metallophobic, in particularly aluminophobic, structure 18; para. [0032], porous structure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a porous media, such as a foamed structure, for the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle, as taught by Mikami, for the invention disclosed by Mark. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sintered metal or silicon, as taught by Kim, or further silicon nitride and therefore ceramic, as taught by Michalowksi, for the porous foam structure and invention disclosed by Mark and Mikami.
One would be motivated to comprise a porous foam media in the constrictive dissipative section of the nozzle in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see teaching by Mikami above; see also teaching by Kim above, wherein porous media controls impedance and prevents backflow). One would be motivated to construct the foam of Mikami out of sintered metal or silicon, and further silicon nitride, in order to provide a nozzle structure which is compatible with printing with a metal melt such as molten aluminum (see teaching by Michalowski above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Mark fails to disclose the length of the shaping section, and is silent towards the diameter of constriction and the length of the constricted dissipative section.
Rudolph teaches a constricted dissipative section for a 3D printer, wherein the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipative section is 0.3mm in order to align fillers in a composite material (para. [0021]; Fig. 2, constricted dissipative section 330; para. [0006]). Rudolph further teaches wherein the cross-section of the nozzle orifice is larger than the constricted dissipative section in order to partially reorient the filler material after the constricted dissipative section, and that changing the shape of the orifice can tailor the amount of realignment of filler particles (Fig. 2, portion 340; para. [0020] and para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipation section to be 0.300mm, and to have had a cross-sectional area of the constricted dissipation section which is smaller than that of the orifice, as taught by Rudolph, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to use composite materials and subsequently tailor the orientation of the filler material within the composite material (see teaching by Rudolph above). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that a 0.300mm diameter constricted dissipation section (for circular cross-section) would produce a cross-sectional area smaller than that of a cross-sectional area from a 0.500mm diameter orifice. Thus Mark and Rudolph disclose wherein the constricted dissipation section comprises a cross-sectional area which is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the orifice, as claimed.
Further, because Rudolph teaches wherein the length of the expansion region (shaping section/orifice exit) affects the degree of fiber orientation, Rudolph teaches that the length of the shaping section is a results-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have comprised an shaping section length of 100um as claimed in order to modify the fiber orientation, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
Gibson teaches wherein a throat portion (see Fig. 13B and 13C, wherein throat portion is a constrictive dissipative section – narrower than preceding section and the orifice diameter) is 250-400um in order to adjust the jetting dynamics by increasing the fluid inertance in the nozzle (para. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the constrictive dissipative section be 250-400um, as taught by Gibson, for the invention disclosed by Mark and Rudolph, in order to increase fluid inertance in the nozzle and adjust jetting dynamics (see teaching above). A length of 250-400um reads on the claimed 400um.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose a constricted dissipative section which is three-dimensional and has the claimed diameter and length of constriction (see above), and therefore comprises a (A) cross-sectional area, a (S) perimeter of the constricted dissipative section, and a (δ) characteristic length (height) to which fluid may form a fluid boundary layer inside the dissipative section.
Mark is silent towards relaxation time, but the nozzle geometry of Mark and Rudolph comprises the claimed diameter of constriction, as well as non-zero (definitive) values for the cross-sectional area, perimeter of the constricted dissipative section and characteristic length. Therefore, fluid in the dissipative section would comprise a relaxation time (τ) corresponding to this nozzle geometry, and be proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section, and proportional to dc2, as claimed, because the nozzle structure is the same as claimed. Thus, the constricted dissipation section and apparatus of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time.
Additionally, the constricted dissipative section may also be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time by modification, for example, of the viscosity or surface tension of the liquid, or by tuning the control signals (see Mark, para. [0037], wherein the shape and size of the jetting orifice, the surface tension and viscosity of the material, the wetting interaction between the metal and the orifice, and the configuration and timing of the modulation signal from the controller, may be tuned).
For example, Paton teaches a drop on demand printer wherein the relaxation time of the liquid in the nozzle is the same or less than the period of the pulses, and wherein the period of the pulses is 2-20 µsec, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Chen teaches wherein liquids with high electrical conductivities have very short relaxation times in the EHD jetting process (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the apparatus of Mark and Rudolph to comprise a relaxation time within the range of 2-20 µsec, as taught by Paton, such as by modifying the electrical conductivity of the printing medium, as taught by Chen, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (see teaching by Paton above).
Further, the limitation regarding “relaxation time” is directed to a feature of the material or article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e., the relaxation time is a limitation directed to the fluid). The "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Additionally, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose the claimed nozzle structure and therefore nozzle configuration thereof, and all structural limitations have been met. Thus, the nozzle of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to produce the claimed relaxation time, which is also taught by Paton, and one which is proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section and proportional to dc2, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18, Mark discloses wherein the dissipative section comprises:
an axisymmetric portion, a diameter less than a diameter of the tank, and a diameter less than a diameter of the shaping tip (see Fig. 7 and Image 1 above wherein component 104 and shaping tip/exit orifice are aligned and symmetric about the vertical axis; see wherein tank reservoir diameter above is much larger than the diameter of component 104; see wherein multiple positions along the shaping tip comprise diameters which are much larger than the diameter of component 104 located directly above the shaping tip).
Regarding Claim 20, Mark discloses a drop-on-demand (DOD) printer (Abstract; para. [0046]), comprising:
an ejector comprising an array of nozzles, the array of nozzles comprising: a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 16 showing multiple nozzles; para. [0077] wherein multiple print heads are parallelized (arrayed) to provide higher throughput),
each nozzle (Fig. 7; Image 1 above) comprising:
a tank in communication with a source of printing material (Fig. 7, see reservoir portion above component 104; see Image 1 above, tank);
a constricted dissipative section in communication with the tank, comprising an elongated internal channel having a having a diameter of constriction, dc, that is approximately constant along a length of the constricted dissipative section (Fig. 7, elongated internal channel 104 of approximately constant diameter in communication with reservoir above; see also Image 1 above, wherein the constricted dissipative section has an elongated internal channel which feeds from the reservoir of the tank above into the shaping tip below); and
a shaping section comprising a shaping tip in communication with the constricted dissipation section and comprising an exit orifice, the shaping section having a non-continuous diameter, and wherein the shaping section is positioned between the constricted dissipation section and the nozzle end (Fig. 7, end of component 202 which comprises an exit orifice where molten drops exit the nozzle; see Image 1 below, shaping tip and exit orifice portion; shaping tip, which comprises the shaping section, has a non-continuous diameter (is tapered) and therefore the shaping section has a non-continuous diameter; shaping section is below the constricted dissipation section and above the end of the nozzle);
and
a power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power to the ejector, which causes one or more drops of the printing material to be jetted out of the nozzle (Fig. 1; component 106; para. [0039]; vibration powered by a voltage pulse generator reads on ‘power source configured to supply one or more pulses of power; see also para. [0037] wherein a magnetohydrodynamic kinetic drive converts current to pressure pulses to dispense droplets); and
wherein the nozzle is configured to eject a droplet by operating a droplet generation event followed by a droplet ejection event (see Abstract; see Fig. 7; para. [0039]). The apparatus of Mark would be capable of ejecting a droplet by a generation event followed by a droplet ejection event.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Print head/ejector Mark, Fig. 7; annotated
Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle further comprises a porous media made of ceramic or metal foam.
Mikami teaches a similar invention wherein a constricted dissipative section of a drop-on-demand type nozzle comprises a porous media in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see Abstract; see para. [0009]). Mikami teaches the use of foamed sponges having water permeability, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sponge is metallic or ceramic.
Kim similarly teaches supplying ink through a porous medium in order to filter out impurity particles while controlling ink flow impedance, wherein the porous medium is made of porous silicon or sintered metal, and prevents backflow (para. [0037]; [0043]; [0046]; [0095]; [0109]).
Michalowski teaches wherein a porous medium for a nozzle structure porous silicon nitride in order to be metallophobic and usable for printing a metal melt or aluminum melt (Abstract, metal melt; para. [0015], silicon nitride; para. [0029], metallophobic, in particularly aluminophobic, structure 18; para. [0032], porous structure 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a porous media, such as a foamed structure, for the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle, as taught by Mikami, for the invention disclosed by Mark. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used sintered metal or silicon, as taught by Kim, or further silicon nitride and therefore ceramic, as taught by Michalowksi, for the porous foam structure and invention disclosed by Mark and Mikami.
One would be motivated to comprise a porous foam media in the constrictive dissipative section of the nozzle in order to tailor flow speed and prevent flow velocity in unwanted directions (see teaching by Mikami above; see also teaching by Kim above, wherein porous media controls impedance and prevents backflow). One would be motivated to construct the foam of Mikami out of sintered metal or silicon, and further silicon nitride, in order to provide a nozzle structure which is compatible with printing with a metal melt such as molten aluminum (see teaching by Michalowski above). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Mark fails to disclose the length of the shaping section, and is silent towards the diameter of constriction and the length of the constricted dissipative section.
Rudolph teaches a constricted dissipative section for a 3D printer, wherein the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipative section is 0.3mm in order to align fillers in a composite material (para. [0021]; Fig. 2, constricted dissipative section 330; para. [0006]). Rudolph further teaches wherein the cross-section of the nozzle orifice is larger than the constricted dissipative section in order to partially reorient the filler material after the constricted dissipative section, and that changing the shape of the orifice can tailor the amount of realignment of filler particles (Fig. 2, portion 340; para. [0020] and para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of constriction for the constricted dissipation section to be 0.300mm, and to have had a cross-sectional area of the constricted dissipation section which is smaller than that of the orifice, as taught by Rudolph, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to use composite materials and subsequently tailor the orientation of the filler material within the composite material (see teaching by Rudolph above). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that a 0.300mm diameter constricted dissipation section (for circular cross-section) would produce a cross-sectional area smaller than that of a cross-sectional area from a 0.500mm diameter orifice. Thus Mark and Rudolph disclose wherein the constricted dissipation section comprises a cross-sectional area which is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the orifice, as claimed.
Further, because Rudolph teaches wherein the length of the expansion region (shaping section/orifice exit) affects the degree of fiber orientation, Rudolph teaches that the length of the shaping section is a results-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have comprised an shaping section length of 100um as claimed in order to modify the fiber orientation, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B).
Gibson teaches wherein a throat portion (see Fig. 13B and 13C, wherein throat portion is a constrictive dissipative section – narrower than preceding section and the orifice diameter) is 250-400um in order to adjust the jetting dynamics by increasing the fluid inertance in the nozzle (para. [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the constrictive dissipative section be 250-400um, as taught by Gibson, for the invention disclosed by Mark and Rudolph, in order to increase fluid inertance in the nozzle and adjust jetting dynamics (see teaching above). A length of 250-400um reads on the claimed 400um.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose a constricted dissipative section which is three-dimensional and has the claimed diameter and length of constriction (see above), and therefore comprises a (A) cross-sectional area, a (S) perimeter of the constricted dissipative section, and a (δ) characteristic length (height) to which fluid may form a fluid boundary layer inside the dissipative section.
Mark is silent towards relaxation time, but the nozzle geometry of Mark and Rudolph comprises the claimed diameter of constriction, as well as non-zero (definitive) values for the cross-sectional area, perimeter of the constricted dissipative section and characteristic length. Therefore, fluid in the dissipative section would comprise a relaxation time (τ) corresponding to this nozzle geometry, and be proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section, and proportional to dc2, as claimed, because the nozzle structure is the same as claimed. Thus, the constricted dissipation section and apparatus of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time.
Additionally, the constricted dissipative section may also be configured to operate at the claimed relaxation time by modification, for example, of the viscosity or surface tension of the liquid, or by tuning the control signals (see Mark, para. [0037], wherein the shape and size of the jetting orifice, the surface tension and viscosity of the material, the wetting interaction between the metal and the orifice, and the configuration and timing of the modulation signal from the controller, may be tuned).
For example, Paton teaches a drop on demand printer wherein the relaxation time of the liquid in the nozzle is the same or less than the period of the pulses, and wherein the period of the pulses is 2-20 µsec, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Chen teaches wherein liquids with high electrical conductivities have very short relaxation times in the EHD jetting process (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the apparatus of Mark and Rudolph to comprise a relaxation time within the range of 2-20 µsec, as taught by Paton, such as by modifying the electrical conductivity of the printing medium, as taught by Chen, in order to increase the volume of droplets expelled (see teaching by Paton above).
Further, the limitation regarding “relaxation time” is directed to a feature of the material or article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e., the relaxation time is a limitation directed to the fluid). The "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Additionally, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements, and "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114(II).
Mark, Rudolph and Gibson disclose the claimed nozzle structure and therefore nozzle configuration thereof, and all structural limitations have been met. Thus, the nozzle of Mark and Rudolph would be configured to produce the claimed relaxation time, which is also taught by Paton, and one which is proportional to Aδ/S, independent of the length of the constricted dissipative section and proportional to dc2, as claimed.
Claim 10 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to alternatively rejected Claim 1 above, further in view of Xu (previously cited, US 20100053270 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Mark fails to discloses wherein the nozzle further comprises a tapered transition between the constricted dissipative section and the shaping tip.
Xu teaches wherein a nozzle comprises a tapered transition between the constricted dissipative section and the shaping tip in order to reduce friction, thereby preventing build-up of particles and contaminants and improving nozzle life span (see Fig. 2A-2B; para. [0029]-[0030]; para. [0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a tapered transition between the constricted dissipative section and the shaping tip, as taught by Xu, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to reduce friction, thereby preventing build-up of particles and contaminants and improving nozzle life span (see teaching above).
Claims 6-8 and 19 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to Claim 1 and Claim 17, alternatively rejected above respectively, in further view of Te (previously cited, US 20150147421 A1).
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 7, Mark does not disclose wherein (Claim 6) the constricted dissipative section of the nozzle comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels, or further, wherein (Claim 7) the at least three internal cylindrical channels have substantially the same diameter.
Te discloses a drop-on-demand printer (Abstract) comprising a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle (Fig. 14, constricted dissipative section 28) which further comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels having substantially the same diameter in order to provide material deposition both by drop-by-demand and by rapid deposition (see Fig. 11 and 12, internal cylindrical channels 28; para. [0076]-[0077] and para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the (Claim 6) at least internal cylindrical channels of Te, comprising (Claim 7) substantially the same diameter, as also taught by Te, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to utilize both drop-on-demand deposition and rapid deposition within the same nozzle configuration.
Regarding Claim 8, Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section comprises at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another.
Te discloses a drop-on-demand printer (Abstract) comprising a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle (Fig. 14, constricted dissipative section 28) which further comprises a plurality of dispensing passages (see Fig. 11 and 12, dispensing passages 42), where in the dispensing passages may comprise a profile in an “X” shape arrangement (para. [0077]), in order to provide material deposition both by drop-by-demand and by rapid deposition (para. [0090]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate than an “X” shape reads on two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the constricted dissipative section to have channels with an “X” shape arrangement, as taught by Te, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to utilize both drop-on-demand deposition and rapid deposition within the same nozzle configuration.
Regarding Claim 19, Mark does not disclose wherein the dissipative section of the nozzle comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels having substantially the same diameter.
Te discloses a drop-on-demand printer (Abstract) comprising a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle (Fig. 14, constricted dissipative section 28) which further comprises at least three internal cylindrical channels having substantially the same diameter in order to provide material deposition both by drop-by-demand and by rapid deposition (see Fig. 11 and 12, internal cylindrical channels 28; para. [0076]-[0077] and para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the constricted dissipative section to have at least internal cylindrical channels comprising substantially the same diameter, as also taught by Te, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to utilize both drop-on-demand deposition and rapid deposition within the same nozzle configuration.
Claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to alternatively rejected Claim 1 above, respectively, in further view of Ozdemir (previously cited, US 20200376507 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Mark does not disclose wherein the constricted dissipative section comprises at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another.
Ozdemir discloses a similar an invention (Abstract; see Fig. 5) wherein a constricted dissipative section of a nozzle head comprises at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another in order to improve pressure and temperature control (see Fig. 7, perpendicular and intersecting channels 773a-773f; see para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the constricted dissipative section to have at least two intersecting channels that are substantially perpendicular to one another, as taught by Ozdemir, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to improve pressure and temperature control of the build material while dispensing (see teaching by Ozdemir above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark (previously cited, US 20170087632 A1) in view of Mikami (previously cited, JP H08025620 A), Kim (KR 100908115 B1, English Machine Translation provided), Michalowski (US 20220032534 A1), Rudolph (previously cited, US 20190176391 A), Gibson (previously cited, US 20210379664 A1), Paton (previously cited, US 5463416 A) and Chen (previously cited, US 20210138794 A), as applied to alternatively rejected Claim 11 above, respectively, in further view of Sachs (previously cited, US 20040217186 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Mark does not disclose wherein the radius of curvature of the exit orifice is less than 10 percent of a diameter of the exit orifice.
Sachs discloses a similar invention wherein the radius of curvature of an exit orifice for a drop-on-demand printer is less than 10 percent of a diameter of the exit orifice in order to reduce film and debris build-up (para. [0107]-[0108]; Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the relationship 2q/D≤0.1, wherein q is the radius of curvature of the exit orifice and D is a diameter of the exit orifice, reads on the claimed values (i.e., q≤0.05D, or less than or equal to 5% of the diameter of the exit orifice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a radius of curvature of the exit orifice of less than 10 percent of a diameter of the exit orifice, as taught by Sachs, for the invention disclosed by Mark, in order to balance ease of manufacturing with film and debris build-up (see teaching by Sachs above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 3, 2025, with respect to Claims 1, 17 and 20, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Mark in view of Kazmer, Rudolph, Gibson, Paton and Chen, and alternatively over Mark in view of Rudolph, Gibson, Paton and Chen, have been fully considered, and are persuasive in view of the amendments further limiting the constrictive dissipative section to have a porous media comprising a metallic or ceramic foam. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Mark in view of Mikami, Kim, Michalowski, Kazmer, Rudolph, Gibson, Paton and Chen, and alternatively over Mark in view of Mikami, Kim, Michalowski, Rudolph, Gibson, Paton and Chen, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Budraa (previously cited, US 20200290350 A1): teaches a nozzle with a constricted dissipative section of consistent diameter (Fig. 10-Fig. 12; para. [0065]).
An (previously cited, “Effect of viscosity, electrical conductivity, and surface tension on direct-current-pulsed drop-on-demand electrohydrodynamic printing frequency”): teaches wherein, for a fixed nozzle diameter, the relaxation time is linearly proportional to ink viscosity (Pg. 105, Col. 2, Para. 2).
Steeman (previously cited, US 20200369896 A1): teaches using liquid materials with prescribed viscosity and rheological characteristic to obtain relaxation times less than 10ms (Abstract; para. [0130]).
Harikrishna (previously cited, US 20130273239 A1): teaches vapor jet printing nozzle wherein a constricted dissipative section (throttle section) is 4-10% the diameter size of the nozzle outlet diameter in order to allow the shock front of the jetting to form within the nozzle after exiting the throttle/constricted dissipative section (para. [0079]-[0081]; para. [0033]). Harikrishna teaches a throttle section of 0.25mm, leading to a 1mm diameter outlet (para. [0107]).
Harikrishna teaches wherein the length of the nozzle section to the dissipative diameter is approximately 2-20 in order to provide sufficient distance for the shock front from jetting to form and dissipate prior to exiting the outlet, and wherein the length of the nozzle section is 1-20mm (para. [0037]; para. [0082]).
Kazmer (previously cited and cited above, US 20210154916 A1, additional teachings): teaches wherein the length of the portion prior to the nozzle shaping tip (i.e., constrictive dissipative section; see para. [0142], wherein section 15 converges (constricts) to section 17) is 0.5-10 times the diameter (para. [0143]). For a constrictive dissipative section of 0.3mm diameter, the length of this section should appropriately be 0.15-3mm.
Rudolph (previously cited and cited above, US 20190176391 A, additional teachings): teaches wherein the diameter of the dispensing end of the expansion region (diameter of shaping section exit) to diameter of the interface with the contraction region is about 5:1 to 1.5:1 (para. [0013]; Claim 8). Therefore, for a contraction section diameter of 0.3mm, the expansion diameter of the nozzle exit would be 0.45-1.5mm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735