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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 2/18/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 14, 19, 21, 23-31, 35-37, 40, and 42 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 6, 14, and 35-37 are withdrawn from further consideration.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, 23-31, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, 23, 30, and 40 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016102280 (“DE ‘280,” cited by Applicant), in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526), and Anagnostopoulos et al. (US 6,065,825).
Claims(s) 24-27 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of DE 202016102280 (“DE ‘280,” cited by Applicant), Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526), Anagnostopoulos et al. (US 6,065,825), Freedman (US 1,701,152), Hayafuchi (US 2015/0054875), and Hirabayashi et al. (US 6,189,989).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, 28, 29, 31, and 40 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenbach (WO 2009/074182; cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526), and Anagnostopoulos et al. (US 6,065,825).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest at least the newly amended feature(s) of “an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser from which the dyestuff is dispensed to reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip and to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of the textile.” More specifically, Applicant argues that the airflow of Ohnishi and Anagnostopoulos would not reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip.
First, Applicant argues that neither Anagnostopoulos nor Ohnishi directs an airflow against a dispensing tip. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Anagnostopoulos discloses a print head (Figure 2: 70) including a nozzle (80) having an outside surface (85) and an orifice (90), and a passage (210) carrying a gas that contacts the bottom of the nozzle at the outside surface (85) and the orifice (90). The bottom portion(s) of the nozzle/print head are broadly and reasonably the tip, and the gas blowing in contact with those surfaces is broadly and reasonably against the tip (for example, see merriam-webster.com defining “against” as “in contact with”). Ohnishi discloses an ink jet head (Figure 2: 12) including a nozzle (106) and a nozzle (104, understood to be a nozzle outlet) and an air guiding path (112) carrying air that contacts the sides and bottom of the nozzle (106). The bottom portion(s), including a side of the bottom portion, of the nozzle (106) are broadly and reasonably the tip of the nozzle, and the air in contact with those surfaces is broadly and reasonably against the tip (for example, see merriam-webster.com defining “against” as “in contact with”).
Applicant argues that the airflow of Ohnishi does not reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip because the airflow at the dispensing tip of Ohnishi would only be laminar after exiting the blowing section (120). Applicant also relies upon the Blythe Declaration (filed 2/18/2026) which states that “eddies that form in this region will result in ink accumulation at the nozzle (especially smaller satellite droplets).” This argument is not persuasive. The claims only require that the airflow reduces the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating. There is no requirement for zero risk or zero accumulation of dyestuff. Since the air of Ohnishi is designed to carry droplets away from the nozzle to the target, it broadly and reasonably reduces the risk of dyestuff from accumulating on the nozzle/tip at least compared to some other nozzle design or some other potential uses of the nozzle (see Ohnishi at Figure 5 and paragraph 78 discussing the airflow assisting in the discharge of both a major drop 62 and small and large satellite drops 64a,b toward the medium 50). Additionally, even if smaller satellite droplets may accumulate, as stated in the Blythe Declaration, this outcome is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a reduced risk since the main and larger satellite droplets may not accumulate. The Examiner also notes that this interpretation is consistent with the Application which only states that the flow of air “reduces the risk of a known problem in printheads for dispensing other types of fluid such as inks, wherein dispensed fluid accumulates on the nozzle tips of dispensing elements and blocks the nozzles or reduces homogeneity of the dispensed fluid” (specification, page 17, lines 11-14). The specification provides no objective standard for determining what constitutes a reduced risk and only compares the claimed embodiment to some other known printhead operating with other fluids.
Applicant argues that Anagnostopoulos does not reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip because it is designed to leave a dyestuff meniscus. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim which does not require any specific details of a meniscus. Furthermore, the mere presence of a meniscus does not constitute an accumulation of dyestuff as claimed. It represents the mere presence of dyestuff at the nozzle outlet. Additionally, the claims only require that the airflow reduces the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating, such that there is no requirement for zero risk or zero accumulation of dyestuff. The Examiner also notes that this interpretation is consistent with the Application which only states that the flow of air “reduces the risk of a known problem in printheads for dispensing other types of fluid such as inks, wherein dispensed fluid accumulates on the nozzle tips of dispensing elements and blocks the nozzles or reduces homogeneity of the dispensed fluid” (specification, page 17, lines 11-14). The specification provides no objective standard for determining what constitutes a reduced risk and only compares the claimed embodiment to some other known printhead operating with other fluids.
Claim(s) 42 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016102280 (“DE ‘280,” cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), and Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526). Claim(s) 42 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenbach (WO 2009/074182; cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399) and Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526). Applicant argues that Ohnishi does not disclose an airflow against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser in a direction substantially parallel to the direction in which the dyestuff is dispensed. Applicant argues that Ohnishi at most discloses an airflow directed against a dispensing tip of a flow channel dispenser in a direction substantially perpendicular to the direction in which dyestuff is dispensed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Ohnishi discloses an air guiding path (112) having an initial vertical segment, a horizontal segment, then a main airflow blowing portion (108) allowing the air to flow in a final vertical segment (Figure 5). The bottom portion(s), including a side of the bottom portion, of the nozzle (106) are broadly and reasonably the tip of the nozzle, and the air in contact with those surfaces is broadly and reasonably against the tip (for example, see merriam-webster.com defining “against” as “in contact with”). At least at the bottom of the first vertical segment of the air guiding path (112), the air contacts and is against the dispensing tip, and at least at the final vertical segment of air flow, the air contacts and is against the dispensing tip. The air in the vertical segments is parallel to at least some of the dispensed ink (Figure 5: 62, 64a, 64b). Also note that “the direction in which the dyestuff is dispensed” has no antecedent basis, so has been interpreted as the inherent direction that any dispensed dyestuff (including a main droplet or a satellite droplet) may possess.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new/modified ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, 23-31, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser from which they dyestuff is dispensed to reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip” (emphasis added) which is indefinite because a PHOSITA would not be able to determine what level of risk constitutes a reduced risk. Within the claim itself, there is no standard or comparison for determining what constitutes a reduced risk. With respect to the level of risk, the specification only indicates that the flow of air “reduces the risk of a known problem in printheads for dispensing other types of fluid such as inks, wherein dispensed fluid accumulates on the nozzle tips of dispensing elements and blocks the nozzles or reduces homogeneity of the dispensed fluid” (specification, page 17, lines 11-14). The specification appears to compare the level of risk to that of a known printhead for dispensing other types of fluids, but this does not constitute any kind of objective standard for determining what level of risk is a reduced risk such that a PHOSITA would be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, 23, 30, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016102280 (“DE ‘280,” cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526), and Anagnostopoulos et al. (US 6,065,825).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, 23, and 40, DE ‘280 discloses a method of digitally controlled application and fixation of dyestuff to a textile on a processing line (translation, paragraph 8), the method comprising: determining one or more parameters of the textile (translation, paragraphs 10, 11, 17); determining, by a processor, at least one dose setting for an array of flow channel dispensers of the processing line, wherein determining the at least one dose setting is based on the one or more parameters (30, 30a, 74; translation, paragraphs 10, 11, 17); dispensing, by the array of flow channel dispensers, dyestuff onto the textile according to the at least one dose setting (translation, paragraphs 10, 11, 17); and, delivering energy to the textile to fix the dyestuff in the textile (translation, paragraphs 32, 33); wherein the one or more parameters comprise parameters of the textile to be dyed or the dyed textile (translation, paragraphs 10, 11, 17); wherein the one or more parameters are determined in real-time or near real-time (translation, paragraphs 6-11; see continuous digital control of the apparatus to print a pattern); wherein the one or more parameters are determined continuously wherein the one or more parameters are determined in real-time or near real-time (translation, paragraphs 6-11; see continuous digital control of the apparatus to print a pattern); wherein the array of flow channel dispensers comprises a spray coater or inkjet print head (30, 110, 112); further comprising controlling the flow rate of dispensed dyestuff using at least one of pressure, ultrasonic energy, and positive displacement pumping, using the processor (translation, paragraph 13; note that the ink flow will inherently use pressure); determining, by the processor at least one discrete location of textile to be dyed, and dispensing, by the array of flow channel dispensers, dyestuff onto the at least one discrete location (Figure 3, see patterns 100a-100c); wherein the surface tension of the liquid dyestuff is controlled in order to affect fluid spreading after application to the textile (translation, paragraph 14, see surfactant, and water).
DE ‘280 is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser from which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Saito discloses an ink jet recording method for printing pigment having ink droplets (2) discharged from a nozzle opening (1), wherein the droplets are in the range of 1 ng to 9 ng and have an average discharging speed of greater than 5 m/s, so that the droplets adhere to a base of the cloth instead of the fluff (paragraphs 32-35). Ohnishi discloses an inkjet printer having an ink-jet head (12) that further includes an airflow blowing section as a rectified-stream generating mechanism for generating rectified airflow which assists the ink in its flying motion and controls the effect of air resistance on the ink drops (120; paragraphs 48, 55-57, 60).
Because it is known in the art to provide droplets to an internal structure of a textile and to use air rectified flow, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing and controlling droplets to adhere to a base of a cloth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser from which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Modified DE ‘280 is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the airflow is directed to reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip.
Anagnostopoulos discloses a printer having mechanically assisted ink droplet separation and a method of using the same, including a nozzle (80) with an orifice (90), and wherein an ink meniscus of predetermined surface tension (100) is formed, and a gas, such as air, is supplied to a passage (210) to sever a neck portion of the ink and further clears away particulate matter, so the orifice (90) is blockage free, to address the problem of blockage and clogging of the nozzle with particulate matter and dried ink (abstract; col. 1, lines 32-43; col. 2, line 25 - col. 3, line 6; col. 5, lines 24-48). Additionally, Ohnishi discloses the purpose of the invention is to solve the problem of turbulent airflow which affects landing accuracy of the ink drops and to provide an airflow that assists in the flying motion of the ink drops (paragraphs 14-17), and describes the main airflow from the blowing port as a rectified laminar flow (paragraphs 59-60). Also see Ohnishi at Figure 5 and paragraph 78 discussing the airflow assisting in the discharge of both a major drop 62 and small and large satellite drops 64a,b toward the medium 50.
Because it is known in the art to design the nozzle and control the airflow to prevent a blockage and/or clogging, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, preventing blockage and/or clogging using a known design/technique, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the airflow is directed to reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip. Also note that there is no requirement for zero risk or zero accumulation of dyestuff. Since the prior art is designed to carry droplets away from the nozzle to a target, they broadly and reasonably reduce the risk of dyestuff from accumulating on the nozzle/tip at least compared to some other nozzle design or some other potential uses of the nozzle.
Regarding claim 30, modified DE ‘280 is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the dyestuff dispensed from the flow channel dispensers is in the form of atomised droplets with a velocity greater than 5 ms-1.
Saito discloses an ink jet recording method for printing pigment having ink droplets (2) discharged from a nozzle opening (1), wherein the droplets are in the range of 1 ng to 9 ng and have an average discharging speed of greater than 5 m/s, so that the droplets adhere to a base of the cloth (paragraphs 32-35).
Because it is known in the art to provide droplets with the same speed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing droplets that can adhere to a base of a cloth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the dyestuff dispensed from the flow channel dispensers is in the form of atomised droplets with a velocity greater than 5 ms-1.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016102280 (“DE ‘280,” cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526), and Anagnostopoulos et al. (US 6,065,825), and further in view of Freedman (US 1,701,152).
Regarding claims 24-26, modified DE ‘280 is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the method further comprising the steps of determining, by the processor, at least one continuous boundary between a location of dyed textile and a location of undyed textile, wherein the continuous boundary encloses the location of dyed textile, and detaching a portion of the dyed textile enclosed within the boundary; or the method further comprising the steps of determining, by the processor, at least one continuous boundary between a location of dyed textile and a location of undyed textile and detaching a portion of the textile comprising the entirety of the at least one continuous boundary; or wherein the detached portion comprising the continuous boundary also comprises a strip of textile surrounding the boundary, wherein the strip is a predetermined width.
Freedman discloses a decorative textile article having decorative designs thereon (page 1, lines 1-15), and wherein cutting lines (Figure 1: 6) are cut by a cutting implement and the cutting lines are shown to be spaced apart from the edges of the patterns (Figure 1).
Because it is known in the art to provide a pattern, then cut around the pattern on a boundary, as is claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, allowing the dyed portion/pattern to be used as part of a textile article without destroying the dyed portion/pattern, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the method further comprising the steps of determining, by the processor, at least one continuous boundary between a location of dyed textile and a location of undyed textile, wherein the continuous boundary encloses the location of dyed textile, and detaching a portion of the dyed textile enclosed within the boundary; or the method further comprising the steps of determining, by the processor, at least one continuous boundary between a location of dyed textile and a location of undyed textile and detaching a portion of the textile comprising the entirety of the at least one continuous boundary; or wherein the detached portion comprising the continuous boundary also comprises a strip of textile surrounding the boundary, wherein the strip is a predetermined width.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016102280 (“DE ‘280,” cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526), and Anagnostopoulos et al. (US 6,065,825), and further in view of Hayafuchi (US 2015/0054875) and Hirabayashi et al. (US 6,189,989).
Regarding claim 27, modified DE ‘280 is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose further comprising the steps of: detecting an inconsistency in the textile; and either controlling, by the processor, at least one of a jetting frequency of one or more of the flow channel dispensers and an airflow applied to the dispensed dyestuff to adjust the flow rate or flow trajectory of dispensed dyestuff to compensate for the detected inconsistency, or pausing, by the processor, the processing line entirely.
Hayafuchi discloses a liquid discharging apparatus and method having a color measuring section (70) connected to a control section (70) and an image information input section (90) and is a followed by an ink jet section (40). The image information input section (90) generates a correction image information according to the coloring information on the fabric (paragraphs 93-98). The ink is discharged according to the correction image information to produce printed matter in a more stable manner when there are variations in color or color irregularities (abstract; paragraph 12). Hirabayashi discloses an ink jet printing apparatus having an ink jet head and the discharge frequency is determined, in part, based on the color to be deposited (col. 6, lines 15-19).
Because it is known in the art to correct for color irregularities and to control color via the ink jet discharge frequency, as is claimed, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, allowing for automated color correction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steps of: detecting an inconsistency in the textile; and either controlling, by the processor, at least one of a jetting frequency of one or more of the flow channel dispensers and an airflow applied to the dispensed dyestuff to adjust the flow rate or flow trajectory of dispensed dyestuff to compensate for the detected inconsistency, or pausing, by the processor, the processing line entirely.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 21, 28, 29, 31, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenbach (WO 2009/074182; cited by Applicant), in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526), and Anagnostopoulos et al. (US 6,065,825).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, and 21, Hartenbach discloses a method of digitally controlled application and fixation of dyestuff to a textile on a processing line (abstract; 31), the method comprising: determining one or more parameters of the textile (page 8, line 18 - page 9, line 11); determining, by a processor, at least one dose setting for an array of flow channel dispensers of the processing line, wherein determining the at least one dose setting is based on the one or more parameters (9, 24, 25; page 8, line 18 – page 9, line 11); dispensing, by the array of flow channel dispensers, dyestuff onto the textile according to the at least one dose setting (9, 24, 25; page 6, lines 30-35; page 11, lines 9-31); and, delivering energy to the textile to fix the dyestuff in the textile (16; page 4, line 32 - page 5, line 3); wherein the one or more parameters comprise parameters of the textile to be dyed or the dyed textile (page 8, lines 18-28, page 9, lines 6-11); wherein the one or more parameters are determined in real-time or near real-time (page 8, lines 18-28; page 11, lines 9-19; print heads synchronized to movement of the carriage); wherein the one or more parameters are determined continuously wherein the one or more parameters are determined in real-time or near real-time (page 8, lines 18-28; page 11, lines 9-19; print heads synchronized to movement of the carriage); wherein the array of flow channel dispensers comprises a spray coater or inkjet print head (page 3, lines 20-21); further comprising controlling the flow rate of dispensed dyestuff using at least one of pressure, ultrasonic energy, and positive displacement pumping, using the processor (page 6, lines 10-25).
Hartenbach does not expressly disclose wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser from which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Saito discloses an ink jet recording method for printing pigment having ink droplets (2) discharged from a nozzle opening (1), wherein the droplets are in the range of 1 ng to 9 ng and have an average discharging speed of greater than 5 m/s, so that the droplets adhere to a base of the cloth instead of the fluff (paragraphs 32-35). Ohnishi discloses an inkjet printer having an ink-jet head (12) that further includes an airflow blowing section as a rectified-stream generating mechanism for generating rectified airflow which assists the ink in its flying motion and controls the effect of air resistance on the ink drops (120; paragraphs 48, 55-57, 60).
Because it is known in the art to provide droplets to an internal structure of a textile and to use air rectified flow, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing and controlling droplets to adhere to a base of a cloth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser from which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Modified Hartenbach is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the airflow is directed to reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip.
Anagnostopoulos discloses a printer having mechanically assisted ink droplet separation and a method of using the same, including a nozzle (80) with an orifice (90), and wherein an ink meniscus of predetermined surface tension (100) is formed, and a gas, such as air, is supplied to a passage (210) to sever a neck portion of the ink and further clears away particulate matter, so the orifice (90) is blockage free, to address the problem of blockage and clogging of the nozzle with particulate matter and dried ink (abstract; col. 1, lines 32-43; col. 2, line 25 - col. 3, line 6; col. 5, lines 24-48). Additionally, Ohnishi discloses the purpose of the invention is to solve the problem of turbulent airflow which affects landing accuracy of the ink drops and to provide an airflow that assists in the flying motion of the ink drops (paragraphs 14-17), and describes the main airflow from the blowing port as a rectified laminar flow (paragraphs 59-60). Also see Ohnishi at Figure 5 and paragraph 78 discussing the airflow assisting in the discharge of both a major drop 62 and small and large satellite drops 64a,b toward the medium 50.
Because it is known in the art to design the nozzle and control the airflow to prevent a blockage and/or clogging, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, preventing blockage and/or clogging using a known design/technique, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the airflow is directed to reduce the risk of dispensed dyestuff accumulating on the dispensing tip. Also note that there is no requirement for zero risk or zero accumulation of dyestuff. Since the prior art is designed to carry droplets away from the nozzle to a target, they broadly and reasonably reduce the risk of dyestuff from accumulating on the nozzle/tip at least compared to some other nozzle design or some other potential uses of the nozzle.
Regarding claims 28, 29, 31, and 40, modified Hartenbach further discloses wherein determining the one or more parameters comprises at least one of: receiving a data input containing the one or more parameters; and detecting the one or more parameters using one or more sensors (32; page 8, line 35 – page 9, line 11); wherein the one or more parameters comprise at least one of: basis weight, speed, dyestuff concentration, textile thickness, diameter, textile batch code, adsorbance capacity, water content, colour, shade, pantone, and reflectivity (page 9, lines 6- 11); the method further comprises the step of fixing the dispensed dye onto the textile using steam with a temperature in the range 150°C to 250°C or radiation, including at least one of infrared, microwave and radiofrequency radiation (page 4, line 33 – page 5, line 3); wherein the surface tension of the liquid dyestuff is controlled in order to affect fluid spreading after application to the textile (page 5, lines 18-29).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016102280 (“DE ‘280,” cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399), and Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526).
Regarding claims 42, DE ‘280 discloses a method of digitally controlled application and fixation of dyestuff to a textile on a processing line (translation, paragraph 8), the method comprising: determining one or more parameters of the textile (translation, paragraphs 10, 11, 17); determining, by a processor, at least one dose setting for an array of flow channel dispensers of the processing line, wherein determining the at least one dose setting is based on the one or more parameters (30, 30a, 74; translation, paragraphs 10, 11, 17); dispensing, by the array of flow channel dispensers, dyestuff onto the textile according to the at least one dose setting (translation, paragraphs 10, 11, 17); and, delivering energy to the textile to fix the dyestuff in the textile (translation, paragraphs 32, 33).
DE ‘280 does not expressly disclose wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser in a direction substantially parallel to the direction in which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Saito discloses an ink jet recording method for printing pigment having ink droplets (2) discharged from a nozzle opening (1), wherein the droplets are in the range of 1 ng to 9 ng and have an average discharging speed of greater than 5 m/s, so that the droplets adhere to a base of the cloth instead of the fluff (paragraphs 32-35). Ohnishi discloses an inkjet printer having an ink-jet head (12) that further includes an airflow blowing section as a rectified-stream generating mechanism for generating rectified airflow which assists the ink in its flying motion and controls the effect of air resistance on the ink drops (120; paragraphs 48, 55-57, 60). Ohnishi further discloses the airflow and dyestuff flow together through the blowing port to the target medium (50, 104, 108; Figure 2; paragraph 57).
Because it is known in the art to provide droplets to an internal structure of a textile and to use air rectified flow in a direction of the dyestuff, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing and controlling droplets to adhere to a base of a cloth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser in a direction substantially parallel to the direction in which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenbach (WO 2009/074182; cited by Applicant) in view of Saito et al. (US 2014/0240399) and Ohnishi et al. (US 2012/0262526).
Regarding claim 42, Hartenbach discloses a method of digitally controlled application and fixation of dyestuff to a textile on a processing line (abstract; 31), the method comprising: determining one or more parameters of the textile (page 8, line 18 - page 9, line 11); determining, by a processor, at least one dose setting for an array of flow channel dispensers of the processing line, wherein determining the at least one dose setting is based on the one or more parameters (9, 24, 25; page 8, line 18 – page 9, line 11); dispensing, by the array of flow channel dispensers, dyestuff onto the textile according to the at least one dose setting (9, 24, 25; page 6, lines 30-35; page 11, lines 9-31); and, delivering energy to the textile to fix the dyestuff in the textile (16; page 4, line 32 - page 5, line 3).
Hartenbach does not expressly disclose wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser in a direction substantially parallel to the direction in which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Saito discloses an ink jet recording method for printing pigment having ink droplets (2) discharged from a nozzle opening (1), wherein the droplets are in the range of 1 ng to 9 ng and have an average discharging speed of greater than 5 m/s, so that the droplets adhere to a base of the cloth instead of the fluff (paragraphs 32-35). Ohnishi discloses an inkjet printer having an ink-jet head (12) that further includes an airflow blowing section as a rectified-stream generating mechanism for generating rectified airflow which assists the ink in its flying motion and controls the effect of air resistance on the ink drops (120; paragraphs 48, 55-57, 60). Ohnishi further discloses the airflow and dyestuff flow together through the blowing port to the target medium (50, 104, 108; Figure 2; paragraph 57).
Because it is known in the art to provide droplets to an internal structure of a textile and to use air rectified flow in a direction of the dyestuff, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing and controlling droplets to adhere to a base of a cloth, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have does not expressly disclose wherein an airflow is directed against a dispensing tip of each flow channel dispenser in a direction substantially parallel to the direction in which the dyestuff is dispensed to direct a dyestuff droplet into an internal structure of a textile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ohnishi (US 2011/0304868) discloses an inkjet printer embodiment (Figure 2) wherein no airflow is being blown and when ink is discharged, satellite droplets form a mist that tends to adhere to the internal parts of the printer (paragraphs 56-59). An embodiment (Figures 3-4) includes nozzles (104), an air blowing unit (120), a primary-airflow feed port (112), and a secondary-airflow feed port (114), so that a more streamlined primary airflow can be realized and the ink droplets can be made to reach properly to the printing medium even if the size of the ink droplets is small (paragraphs 66, 74, 76).
Kritchman et al. (US 2012/0081455) discloses a printing device including a printing head with one or more rows of nozzles, including an air duct for generating air flow within a gap between a printing head and a shield which may assist in maintaining spaces of the printing device free of fluid buildup (Figure 3: 12, 30; paragraphs 15, 28).
Yan et al. (US 2013/0063526) discloses an inkjet unit including a discharge opening (231), and a gas flow channel (251) connected to a gas supply device (25) to clean off liquid attached around the jetting nozzle (23).
Matsumoto (US 2010/0208020) discloses an ink jet printer including a printhead (Figure 3: 110) including an outlet (155) for flowing an oxygen containing gas across the surface of the printhead to decrease the likelihood of ink curing (paragraph 27).
KR 10-0519756 discloses an inkjet printhead (Figure 2) including a print head (35), a mixing chamber (42), a nozzle tube (44), and a conduit (52) through which compressed air is supplied in front of the outlet (46) of the nozzle tube (44).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights