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 .
The instant application, which has a filing date on or after March 16, 2013, is considered a transition application because the application claims domestic benefit to Application Nos. 61,752,372 and 61,785,178, which have filing dates prior to March 16, 2013. Although the instant application does not contain a 37 CFR 1.55/1.78 statement indicating that this application should be examined under the AIA (First Inventor to File), a review of the disclosures of both the instant application and the parent application, by the examiner, reveals that at least one claim presented or that have ever been presented in the instant application appears to be drawn to inventions having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 as the claim(s) fail to have support in the parent application. More specifically, claims’ 1-4, 6-16, and 28-30 feature “wherein levels of each print nozzle of the plurality of print nozzles, above or at the substrate, are not all in the same plane” lacks support in the parent\provisional application and thus the effective filing date of at least one claim in the application appears to be January 14, 2014.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 28-30 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. The prior art rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 16, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr (US 2009/0169719) in view of Boland (US 2004/0237822), Levi (US 2020/0086579), and Benton (US 2013/0215209).
Regarding claim 1, Orr discloses a system comprising: a) a controller ([0028] [0030]), b) a printhead that comprises a plurality of rows comprising a plurality of print nozzles (print head 45 with a row of 8 nozzles each, [0021], Fig. 2A), wherein levels of each print nozzle of the plurality of print nozzles, above or at the substrate, are not all in the same plane (range of distances, [0020] [0021] [0030] see example shown in Fig. 2A), wherein the surface area of the two-dimensional array of print nozzles is equal to or larger than the entirety of the two-dimensional surface area of the substrate that is to be printed upon (multiple printheads may be used, claim requires no minimum size of the substrate, and so the substrate and the printed object can be simply within these multiple printheads, array of 8 rows with multiple nozzles, [0021]), and wherein the printhead does not move during the entirety of the printing of the bioink construct (because the substrate is smaller than the array of nozzles, no movement is needed, [0021]), and c) an ink configured to be ejected through the plurality of print nozzles onto the substrate ([0021]).
Orr teaches a system substantially as claimed. Orr does not disclose the system suitable for printing a bio-ink construct onto a substrate, comprising c) a bio-ink configured to be ejected through the plurality of print nozzles onto the substrate, wherein the substrate is a tissue defect, and wherein the bio-ink comprises a plurality of cells, a component of extracellular matrix, a cellular material, a cellular component, a growth factor, a peptide, a protein, a synthetic molecule, a synthetic polymer, or a combination thereof; wherein the system consists of a single printhead.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ink jet 3D printing (abstract), Boland teaches the system suitable for printing a bio-ink construct onto a substrate (cellular composition containing cells onto a substrate, [0006-08] [0060] [0073]), comprising c) a bio-ink configured to be ejected through the plurality of print nozzles onto the substrate (cellular composition containing cells onto a substrate, [0006-08] [0060] [0073]), wherein the substrate is a tissue defect ([0006-08] [0060] [0073]), and wherein the bio-ink comprises a plurality of cells (cellular composition containing cells, [0006-08] [0060] [0073]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of ink jet 3D printing ([0161-62]), Levi teaches wherein the system consists of a single printhead (printhead can have a linear set of nozzles or an array, [0163], Fig. 1d).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of printing (abstract), Benton teaches wherein the system consists of a single printhead (printhead 116 can have printing elements in a single line or a two-dimensional array of printing elements, [0057]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Orr to eject bio-ink because [0006-08] of Boland teaches a similar array of ink jet nozzles printing on a substrate of cells, Boland accordingly teaches a similar ink jetting in a similar way, which would be expected to have the result taught by Boland and for the substrate be a tissue defect because [0003] of Orr teaches that the material printed upon can be any material and [0006-08] of Boland teaches a similar array of ink jet nozzles printing on a substrate of cells.
It further would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Orr with an array of nozzles in a single printhead, rather than using a printhead with a linear arrangement because [0163] of Levi and [0057] of Benton teaches that these arrangements are art recognized equivalents. As modified, a single printhead with an array of nozzles replaces multiple printheads 45 of Orr each with a linear arrangement of 8 nozzles.
Regarding claim 2, Orr as modified teaches wherein at least one print nozzle of the plurality of print nozzles is independently actuated to print an individual droplet (delivers an ink droplet, [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Orr as modified teaches wherein the plurality of print nozzles is within 5 cm of a substrate (range of distances, [0020]; because this is an apparatus claim, the apparatus need only be capable of being so located, whether for printing or otherwise).
Regarding claim 4, Orr as modified teaches wherein the tissue defect comprises a damaged tissue, eroded tissue, diseased tissue or degenerated tissue (employed in tissue engineering, Boland [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Orr as modified teaches wherein the plurality of print nozzles fire simultaneously (position and firing path for each nozzle 55 includes printing simultaneously, [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Orr as modified teaches wherein the plurality of print nozzles fire in a specific sequence (position and firing path for each nozzle 55 includes printing in sequence, [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Orr as modified teaches wherein the printhead is mounted on a robotic arm for positioning the printhead ([0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Orr as modified teaches wherein the plurality of print nozzles are mounted in fixed positions relative to one another (nozzles 55 shown in fixed positions relative to one another, Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 11, Orr as modified teaches wherein a pattern of the plurality of print nozzles is customized to the substrate's pattern ([0020], Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 12, Orr as modified teaches wherein a first print nozzle is configured to be at an angle compared to the configuration of a second print nozzle (see nozzles 55 of different print heads 45 in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 16, Orr discloses a printhead comprising a plurality of rows comprising a plurality of print nozzles (plurality of print heads 45 with rows of 8 nozzles each, [0021], Fig. 2A), wherein the levels of each print nozzle of the plurality of print nozzles, above or at the substrate, are not all in the same plane (range of distances, [0020] [0021] [0030] see example shown in Fig. 2A), wherein the surface area of the two-dimensional array of print nozzles is equal to or larger than the entirety of the two-dimensional surface area of the substrate that is to be printed upon (multiple printheads may be used, claim requires no minimum size of the substrate, and so the substrate and the printed object can be simply within these multiple printheads, array of 8 rows with multiple nozzles, [0021]), and wherein the printhead does not move during the entirety of the printing of the bioink construct (because the substrate is smaller than the array of nozzles, no movement is needed, [0021]), and.
Orr teaches a printhead substantially as claimed. Orr does not disclose a single printhead or wherein the printhead prints a bio-ink construct.
However, in the same field of endeavor of ink jet 3D printing (abstract), Boland teaches printing a bio-ink construct (cellular composition containing cells onto a substrate, [0006-08] [0060] [0073]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of ink jet 3D printing ([0161-62]), Levi teaches a single printhead comprising a plurality of rows comprising a plurality of print nozzles (printhead can have a linear set of nozzles or an array, [0163], Fig. 1d).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of printing (abstract), Benton teaches a single printhead comprising a plurality of rows comprising a plurality of print nozzles (printhead 116 can have printing elements in a single line or a two-dimensional array of printing elements, [0057]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Orr to eject bio-ink because [0006-08] of Boland teaches a similar array of ink jet nozzles printing on a substrate of cells, Boland accordingly teaches a similar ink jetting in a similar way, which would be expected to have the result taught by Boland.
It further would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the printhead of Orr with an array of nozzles in a single printhead, rather than using a printhead with a linear arrangement because [0163] of Levi and [0057] of Benton teaches that these arrangements are art recognized equivalents. As modified, a single printhead with an array of nozzles replaces multiple printheads 45 of Orr each with a linear arrangement of 8 nozzles.
Regarding claim 30, Orr as modified teaches wherein each print nozzle of the plurality of print nozzles can move independently from one another (nozzles of one print head 45 can move independently of the nozzles of another print head 45, [0021] [0030]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr (US 2009/0169719) in view of Boland (US 2004/0237822), Levi (US 2020/0086579), and Benton (US 2013/0215209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Codos (US 2002/0024544).
Regarding claim 9, Orr is silent as to the resolution of the printhead.
In the same field of endeavor of printing with moveable printheads ([0039]), Codos teaches wherein the spacing between each of the print nozzles of the plurality of print nozzles is between 5 micrometers and 500 micrometers (254 dpi works out to a spacing of 100 micrometers, [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Orr to have a resolution similar to that of Codos because Orr is silent as to the resolution and [0022] of Codos, in the same field of endeavor with vertically adjustable print heads, teaches a dpi within the recited range.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr (US 2009/0169719) in view of Boland (US 2004/0237822), Levi (US 2020/0086579), and Benton (US 2013/0215209) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horike (US 4,231,048).
Regarding claim 13, Orr as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Orr does not disclose wherein the plurality of print nozzles is configured to be a linear array of converging print nozzles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of printing on curved surfaces (abstract), Horike teaches wherein the plurality of print nozzles is configured to be a linear array of converging print nozzles (col. 2 ll. 27-45).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Orr to configure a linear array of converging print nozzles because [0003] of Orr discusses the challenge of printing on a convex surface and (col. 2 ll. 27-45) of Horike teaches a structure for moving and directing nozzles to print on a convex surface.
Regarding claim 14, Orr as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Orr does not disclose wherein the plurality of print nozzles is configured to be a linear array of diverging print nozzles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of printing on curved surfaces (abstract), Horike teaches wherein the plurality of print nozzles is configured to be a linear array of diverging print nozzles (col. 4 ll. 8-19, Figs. 3, 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Orr to configure a linear array of diverging print nozzles because [0003] of Orr discusses the challenge of printing on a concave surface and (col. 4 ll. 8-19, Figs. 3, 5) of Horike teaches a structure for moving and directing nozzles to print on a concave surface.
Regarding claim 15, Orr is not explicit as to modification of the angles of the nozzles.
However, in the same field of endeavor of printing on curved surfaces (abstract), Horike teaches wherein the first print nozzle of the plurality of print nozzles can be configured to be at a first angle relative to the second print nozzle at a first time point and configured to be at a second angle relative to the second print nozzle at a second time point (claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of Orr to include the structure of Horike because [0003] of Orr discusses the challenge of printing on irregular surfaces and designing a printing plan to do so and claim 7 of Horike, solving the same problem of printing on irregular surfaces, teaches being the nozzle angles adjustable to do so, which would make the system capable of the different angles at different times recited by the claim..
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr (US 2009/0169719) in view of Boland (US 2004/0237822), Levi (US 2020/0086579), and Benton (US 2013/0215209) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Codos (US 2002/0024544).
Regarding claim 28, Orr as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Orr is silent as to the resolution of the printhead.
In the same field of endeavor of printing with moveable printheads ([0039]), Codos teaches wherein the printhead comprises a resolution of at least about 100 dots per inch (dpi) (254 dpi, [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Orr to have a resolution greater than 100 dpi because Orr is silent as to the resolution and [0022] of Codos, in the same field of endeavor with vertically adjustable print heads, teaches a dpi within the recited range.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr (US 2009/0169719) in view of Boland (US 2004/0237822), Levi (US 2020/0086579), and Benton (US 2013/0215209) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Matsui (US 2016/0039204).
Regarding claim 29, Orr as modified teaches a system substantially as claimed. Orr does not disclose wherein the printhead further comprises a temperature control apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor of printing with ink ([0003]), Matsui teaches wherein the printhead further comprises a temperature control apparatus ([0061]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Orr to include the temperature regulation of Matsui because [0031] of Orr’s reference to an operating temperature implies a desire to control temperature and [0061] of Matsui teaches a heater to perform temperature regulation to control the smoothness and gloss of what is being printed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Levi (US 2020/0086579) and Benton (US 2013/0215209).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Levi (US 2019/0270253; US 11,161,308) teaches subject matter similar to Levi (US 2020/0086579), cited above. Benton (US 8,711,193) teaches subject matter similar to Benton (US 2013/0215209), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights