DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 7-11, 17-33, 36-41, and 43-77 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-6, 12-16, 34-35, and 42 are still pending in this Application, wherein claims 1-6, and 12-16 have been non-elected/withdrawn. Therefore, only Claims 34-35, and 42 are subject to Examination in this Application.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
2. Applicant’s argument/remarks of 5/20/2026, on pages 6-7, with respect to rejections to claims 34-35, and 42 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/(2) and 103(a) have been fully considered and they are respectfully unpersuasive, the rejections to the claims have been maintained.
On page 6, the Applicant argues that:
“Claim 34 recites, in part, "the material delivery nozzle includes a vertical wire
electrode configured to charge the continuous filament extrusion.…Applicant respectfully submits that Steiner does not disclose that the material delivery nozzle includes a vertical wire electrode to charge the continuous filament extrusion, as claimed”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to the previous arguments, the term “a continuous filament extrusion” is not defined in the original disclosure and Steiner teach a “continuous filament extrusion” in Fig. 2 as a fluid jet portion 15 or “continuous stream” as one of ordinary skill in the art understands. For instance, previously cited references Simon et al (US 10207505) defines a continuous liquid stream as a filament and shows the same characteristics as Steiner; Gelbart et al (US 20050206688) teaches “droplet generator used in a typical continuous apparatus converts a continuous filament of fluid into a continuous stream of droplets. Various methods exist and are employed to change a continuous filament of fluid into continuous stream of droplets. Most often such methods involve the application of an electrical stimulation signal to a suitable transducer in order effect some form of natural oscillation in the liquid, thereby facilitating the breakup of the liquid filament into individual droplets. It is common practice to employ a sinusoidal electrical signal of fixed wavelength for this purpose” which teach the same configuration of the Figs of Steiner. Gelbart teaches a first portion of the fluid and defines the continuous stream of fluid as a “continuous filament”. Thus, Steiner teaches the same continuous stream of fluid as a “continuous filament”. A previously cited NPL reference Liashenko (Ultrafast 3D printing with sub micrometer features using electrostatic jet deflection) teaches 3D printing method and apparatus wherein a continuous filament (jet) is deflected. However, claim 34 as recited requires a portion of the continuous filament (in The BRI a droplet is portion) to be deflected. While any of the cited references above or below in the conclusion could have been combined with Steiner to teach a continuous filament, this is not pertinent because Steiner itself teaches or suggests a continuous filament extruded material being charged and controlled to be deflected in different orientations.
On page 7, The Applicant further argues that:
“However, Steiner does not disclose that the charge electrode 82 is included in the nozzle 54. As shown in Fig. 2 of Steiner, the break-off point 15 at which the charge electrode is positioned is downstream from the nozzle 54/ Applicant notes that the recited "wire" electrode enables the electrode that "charge[s] the continuous filament extrusion" to be included in the nozzle itself …However, the lack of preclusion of a wire electrode does not disclose or suggest modifying the arrangement of the charge electrode 82 being downstream from the nozzle 54 to instead be included in the nozzle 54, nor a corresponding modification of the electrode structure required to successfully modify the arrangement. To this end, Steiner does not disclose or suggest any electrode structure that is suitable for inclusion in the nozzle 54, as claimed. Said another way, Steiner provides no motivation to modify the disclosed arrangement between the charge electrode 82 and the nozzle 54, let alone any teaching of how one would implement said modification”. These arguments are respectfully unpersuasive.
In response to the arguments above, it is unclear from the arguments what is the Applicant’s interpretation of the term “the nozzle incudes vertical wire electrode…”. If the Applicant is trying to suggest in his interpretation “that a vertical wire electrode is within the nozzle” (electrode structure that is suitable for inclusion in the nozzle 54) this does not involve the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed subject matter.
The MPEP 2111 recites “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”. The term “includes” has been interpreted in the BRI as suggested in the MPEP 2111.03 (The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps…(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[L]ike the term ‘comprising,’ the terms ‘containing’ and ‘mixture’ are open-ended.”). The Applicants’ interpretation would have caused a rejection under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of support in the original disclosure. For instance, the original disclosure for this invention in Figs. 25A-B, 27A-C, 56A-C, 58A-C comprise vertical wire electrodes close to the nozzle but not within/enclosed in the nozzle. The original disclosure of this instant Applicant does not teach or suggest a vertical wire enclosed within the nozzle.
Steiner clearly shows that a nozzle includes a vertical electrode (See Fig. 3A). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
On page 8, the Applicant further argues with respect to claim 35 and 42 that:
“As shown in Figure 2 of Rogers, Rogers discloses that a "conducting metal film coats the nozzle in this system, and the substrate rests on a grounded electrode. When a voltage is applied to an ink solution, by use of the metal-coated nozzle assembly, surface charges accumulate in the liquid meniscus near the end of the nozzle." Para. [0162]. Thus, Rogers relates to a different approach to charging droplets. This is, in part, due to Rogers relating to an inkjet printing system, and not a "continuous filament extrusion" printing system, as claimed”. These arguments are unpersuasive.
The combination of Rogers and Steiner teach the limitations of claims 35 and 42. For instance, the original disclosure of this instant invention in [0265] and Fig. 32A-B, and 33 clearly teaches or suggest an interpretation that the array of electrodes is used to control the droplets of the fluid and they are placed on an opposite side of the substrate with respect to the nozzle. When interpreted in the BRI, Rogers clearly teach control an array of electrodes positioned on an opposite side of the substrate with respect to the material delivery nozzle (see Fig. 2-3 electrode positioned an opposite side of the substrate with respect to the material delivery nozzle; also, see [0035]; also, see [0016] “Additional electrodes may be electrically connected to the support to provide further localized control of the electric field generated by supplying a charge to the nozzle, such as for example a plurality of independently addressable electrodes in electrical communication with the substrate surface”; Also, see fig. 23 and [0055] and [0278-0279] “Multiple Substrate Electrodes [0279] Further placement control is achieved by manipulating or varying the electric field between the ejection orifice and surface to-be-printed…”). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steiner (US 20060055747, cited in an IDS).
As per claim 34, Steiner teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to control electrohydrodynamic material deposition, further execution of the computer-readable instructions causes the processor to (see [0034] “…System controller 38 can comprise a micro-computer, micro-processor, micro-controller or any other known arrangement of electrical, electromechanical and electro-optical circuits and systems that can reliably transmit signals to inkjet printhead 34 and translation unit 36 to allow the pattern-wise disposition of donor fluid 39 onto receiver surface 37. System controller 38 can comprise a single controller or it can comprise a plurality of controllers”; also, see [0046] “During printing, system controller 38 receives a print data stream and determines therefrom which specific droplets within a continuous stream of droplets are to be selected for printing. The print data stream can comprise computer code, instructions and/or print data transmitted to the processor from a data source…”):
control a material delivery nozzle (see [0034] “System controller 38 can comprise a micro-computer, micro-processor, micro-controller or any other known arrangement of electrical, electromechanical and electro-optical circuits and systems that can reliably transmit signals to inkjet printhead 34 and translation unit 36 to allow the pattern-wise disposition of donor fluid 39 onto receiver surface 37. System controller 38 can comprise a single controller or it can comprise a plurality of controllers”; also, see Fig. 2 nozzle 54 and see [0035] “As is illustrated in FIG. 2, inkjet printhead 34 comprises a source of pressurized donor fluid 52 such as a pressurized reservoir or a pump arrangement and a nozzle 54 allowing the pressurized donor fluid 39 to form a fluid jet 10 traveling in a first direction 58 toward receiver surface 37. A droplet generation circuit 64 has a transducer 62 which applies a force to the fluid jet perturbing fluid jet 10 to form a stream of droplets 72 at a break-off point 1…”), wherein the material delivery nozzle is configured to direct a continuous filament extrusion in a first orientation relative to a substrate in response to the processor executing a material delivery nozzle control module (see Fig. 2 nozzle 54 and see [0035] “As is illustrated in FIG. 2, inkjet printhead 34 comprises a source of pressurized donor fluid 52 such as a pressurized reservoir or a pump arrangement and a nozzle 54 allowing the pressurized donor fluid 39 to form a fluid jet 10 traveling in a first direction 58/orientation toward receiver surface 37…”, substrate 37 receives material in a downward direction 58, also a fluid jet is continuous filament extrusion of a material), wherein the material delivery nozzle includes a vertical wire electrode configured to charge a continuous filament extrusion (see Fig. 2 and 3A electrodes 82 and/or 83 are vertical positioned and see 0022-0026, 0044, and 0060; also, see electrodes 84 and/or 86 charge the a continuous filament extrusion 10/fluid jet or continuous stream); and
control, in coordination with the vertical wire electrode, an orientation of an electric field proximate the material delivery nozzle to redirect at least a portion of the at least a portion of the continuous filament extrusion in a second orientation relative to the substrate in response to the processor executing an electric field controlling module (in the broadest reasonable interpretation “a portion of the continuous filament extrusion” is interpreted as shown in Fig. 2 the droplets which are a portion or part of the continuous filament 15; see Fig. 2 the electrodes are proximate the nozzle 54, wherein proximate has been interpreted, in the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, as near or close or adjacent or close enough to have an effect on the liquid as shown in Figs. 1A-B of the original disclosure; also, control the orientation of the field has been interpreted, in the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, as activating on and off an electric field; see Steiner [0046] “During printing, system controller 38 receives a print data stream and determines therefrom which specific droplets within a continuous stream of droplets are to be selected for printing. The print data stream can comprise computer code, instructions and/or print data transmitted to the processor from a data source. A print data stream will have data that varies in accordance with the content and placement requirements of the specific pattern to be printed on receiver surface 37. System controller 38 causes a charge electrode potential signal 56 to be applied at charge electrode 82”; also, see [0027 “The apparatus further comprising at least one electrostatic deflection electrode positioned downstream of the charge electrode and adapted to receive an electrical deflection signal and to generate and electrostatic field for altering trajectory of at least one of a non-print selectable droplet, a print selectable droplet selected not to be a print selected droplet, and a print selectable droplet selected to be a print selected droplet. The apparatus may be a continuous inkjet printing apparatus, or a multi jet continuous inkjet printing apparatus”; also, see [0038] “An electrostatic deflection electrode 84 is used to apply a charge to the stream of droplets separate the print selected droplets from the other droplets based on this charge characterization. Optionally, an additional electrostatic deflection electrode 86 can be used to apply additional electrostatic force to deflect print selectable droplets 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. Print selectable droplets 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are guided by such electrostatic forces onto receiver surface 37 while the remaining droplets travel to a gutter 88”; also, see [0024-0025], Thus, the system controls the droplets using an electric field to charge first the droplets using the vertical wire electrodes 82, and then, the charged droplets will follow as second orientation, while the uncharged droplets will follow another natural orientation as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the second orientation is different that the first orientation (see Fig. 2 and see [0054] “para (0054] " ... print selectable droplet 40 may be deflected from its intended trajectory by electrostatic field effects created by the charging of successively formed print selectable droplet 20").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 35 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner (US 20060055747, cited in an IDS) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Rogers et al (US 20110187798, cited in an IDS).
As per claim 35, Steiner teaches the computer-readable medium as in claim 34, but it does not explicitly teach wherein further execution of the computer-readable instructions causes the processor to control an array of electrodes positioned on an opposite side of the substrate with respect to the material delivery nozzle.
However, Rogers teaches an ink jet system comprising instructions to control an array of electrodes positioned on an opposite side of the substrate with respect to the material delivery nozzle (see Fig. 2-3 electrode positioned an opposite side of the substrate with respect to the material delivery nozzle; also, see [0035]; also, see [0016] “Additional electrodes may be electrically connected to the support to provide further localized control of the electric field generated by supplying a charge to the nozzle, such as for example a plurality of independently addressable electrodes in electrical communication with the substrate surface”; Also, see fig. 23 and [0055] and [0278-0279] “Multiple Substrate Electrodes [0279] Further placement control is achieved by manipulating or varying the electric field between the ejection orifice and surface to-be-printed. FIG. 23 provides a perspective view of a nozzle and a substrate surface having four electrodes. There are two cases corresponding to: (i) 4.sup.th electrode grounded; and (ii) 4.sup.th electrode grounded and 2.sup.nd electrode biased. The top two panels of FIG. 23 show the computed electric field. The bottom left panel shows the positions of the four electrodes and nozzle. The bottom right panel shows the position of the printed droplets. In case (i) the printed droplet is centered beneath the nozzle ejection orifice, whereas in case (ii), under the influence of a second charged electrode, the droplet position is off-center. Additional independently addressable electrodes provide capability to further control placement of printed features”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Steiner’s invention to include instructions causes the processor of Steiner to control an array of electrodes positioned on an opposite side of the substrate with respect to the material delivery nozzle as taught by Rogers in order to control substrate electrodes to generate a uniform and highly-confined electric field established between the nozzle and the substrate surface (see [0016]), to improve placement accuracy and fidelity of the printing (see [0028] “In another embodiment, improved printing capability is achieved by providing a substrate assist feature on the surface to be printed, thereby improving placement accuracy and fidelity. Generally, substrate assist feature refers to any process or material connected to the substrate surface that affects printing fluid placemen… such as electrodes connected to a support that in turn provides surface charge pattern on the substrate surface to be printed).
As per claim 42, Steiner teaches the computer-readable medium as in claim 35, Steiner further teaches wherein further execution of the computer-readable instructions causes the processor to control the material delivery nozzle in coordination with(see Steiner [0035] and [0038]; also, see Fig. 2 the nozzle is controlled to deliver fluid and the at least one electrode is controlled to deflect he fluid; also, see [0044] “The trajectories of each of the formed and charged droplets in FIGS. 3A-3E may be subsequently selectively deflected by electrostatic deflection electrode 84 and one or more optional additional deflection electrodes 86 on the basis of the specific charging scheme used to distinguish and separate droplets selected to be printed from droplets selected not to be printed”; also, see [0027 “The apparatus further comprising at least one electrostatic deflection electrode positioned downstream of the charge electrode and adapted to receive an electrical deflection signal and to generate and electrostatic field for altering trajectory of at least one of a non-print selectable droplet, a print selectable droplet selected not to be a print selected droplet, and a print selectable droplet selected to be a print selected droplet. The apparatus may be a continuous inkjet printing apparatus, or a multi jet continuous inkjet printing apparatus”; also, see [0038] “An electrostatic deflection electrode 84 is used to apply a charge to the stream of droplets separate the print selected droplets from the other droplets based on this charge characterization. Optionally, an additional electrostatic deflection electrode 86 can be used to apply additional electrostatic force to deflect print selectable droplets 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. Print selectable droplets 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are guided by such electrostatic forces onto receiver surface 37 while the remaining droplets travel to a gutter 88; also, see Claim 38 above same rationale applies herein). Steiner does not explicitly teach wherein further execution of the computer-readable instructions causes the processor to control the material delivery nozzle in coordination with an array of electrodes.
However, Rogers teaches an ink jet system comprising instructions to control a material delivery nozzle in coordination with an array of electrodes (see [0016] “Additional electrodes may be electrically connected to the support to provide further localized control of the electric field generated by supplying a charge to the nozzle, such as for example a plurality of independently addressable electrodes in electrical communication with the substrate surface”; Also, see fig. 23 and [0055] and [0278-0279] “Multiple Substrate Electrodes [0279] Further placement control is achieved by manipulating or varying the electric field between the ejection orifice and surface to-be-printed. FIG. 23 provides a perspective view of a nozzle and a substrate surface having four electrodes. There are two cases corresponding to: (i) 4.sup.th electrode grounded; and (ii) 4.sup.th electrode grounded and 2.sup.nd electrode biased. The top two panels of FIG. 23 show the computed electric field. The bottom left panel shows the positions of the four electrodes and nozzle. The bottom right panel shows the position of the printed droplets. In case (i) the printed droplet is centered beneath the nozzle ejection orifice, whereas in case (ii), under the influence of a second charged electrode, the droplet position is off-center. Additional independently addressable electrodes provides capability to further control placement of printed features”; also, see [0037], [0085]), and an at least one material dispensing nozzle electrode (see Figs. 2-3 electrode to the nozzle; also, see Fig. 33 nozzle electrode see [0015] “…electric charge to the printing fluid is provided by an electrode having an end that is in electrical communication with the printing fluid in the nozzle”; [0076], [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Steiner’s invention to include instructions causes the processor of Steiner to control the material delivery nozzle in coordination with the array of electrodes and the at least one material dispensing nozzle electrode as taught by Rogers in order to control substrate electrodes to generate a uniform and highly-confined electric field established between the nozzle and the substrate surface (see [0016]), to improve placement accuracy and fidelity of the printing (see [0028] “In another embodiment, improved printing capability is achieved by providing a substrate assist feature on the surface to be printed, thereby improving placement accuracy and fidelity. Generally, substrate assist feature refers to any process or material connected to the substrate surface that affects printing fluid placemen… such as electrodes connected to a support that in turn provides surface charge pattern on the substrate surface to be printed).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as cited in PTO form 892, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al (Versatile, kinetically controlled, high precision electrohydrodynamic writing of micro/nanofibers 2014) teaches a system comprising Electrohydrodynamic jetting wherein a filament of extrusion material is controlled with an electrical field, wherein a nozzle includes an electrode (see Fig. 1).
Liashenko et al (Ultrafast electrohydrodynamic 3D printing with in- situ jet speed
Monitoring) teaches a system comprising Electrohydrodynamic jetting wherein a filament of extrusion material is controlled with an electrical field, wherein a nozzle includes an electrode
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights