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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/13/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims 1 and 7 and the cancellation of claims 2, 3 and 8. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-20 are pending with claims 18-20 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed hereinafter.
As for the requirement that the system comprises a grounded electrode that is entirely between the emitter and the orifice of the printhead, the examiner notes the comprising language. US 002 explicitly discloses the electrode on the interior can be various arrangements, including a single tubular electrode or a plurality of electrodes (column 8, lines 45-55) and therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and the reference for its entire teaching, it would have been obvious to have provide multiple electrodes and therefore it would have been obvious to have provided multiple electrodes on the interior of the dielectric housing, including an electrode that is entirely between the emitter and orifice as claimed, with a reasonably expectation of predictable results, as US 002 illustrates that dividing a single electrode into multiple electrodes requires no more than mere ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner cites here WO 2014033186, also disclosing an electrostatic spraying device and including a plurality of electrodes entirely within the housing, between the emitter and orifice, that are grounded (Figure 5 an accompanying text, see also “The second electrode 200 serves as a ground electrode”, “the second electrode 200 is integrated into the housing 30”, “droplets D emitted from an electrified meniscus at the outlet 1 1 of the reservoir 10/first electrode 100 towards the second (counter) electrode 200. In this process, electrically charged droplets D are accelerated due to the interaction with the electrical field generated by the electrodes 100, 200 and affected by the Coulomb repulsion between the droplets D.”). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have included a ground electrode entirely within the housing as suggested by WO 186 to reap the benefits of electrostatic spraying from an emitter through a chamber to an orifice.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5344676 by Kim et al. and further with US Patent 4009829 by Sickles and US Patent 4073002 by Sickles et al., hereinafter US 002 alone or further with WO 2014033186, hereinafter WO 186.
Claim 1: Kim discloses a printhead for an electrospray printing system, the printhead comprising: a housing (22); a mixing receptacle in the housing (10) and operable to receive at a first inlet a solution (9) and receive at a second inlet an electrical potential that is applied to the solution to produce an electrically charged solution (14), the solution comprising a print material suspended in a solvent (intended use of claimed apparatus, also see Table 2); an emitter in the housing and operable to receive the electrically charged solution at a third inlet and emit the electrically charged solution at an outlet (see Figure 1), the electrical potential producing an electric field that directs electrically charged droplets towards an orifice of the printhead (see plate 30, mask with holes therethrough, see e.g. column 4, lines 1-15 regarding focusing the charged liquid particles), the electrically charged droplets comprising the print material suspended in the solvent (intended use of claimed apparatus, also see Table 2) ; and at least one air flow inlet in the housing and operable to provide a flow of air into the printhead (inlet 28). As for the intended use of the claimed apparatus, see e.g. the italicized phrases above, these are deemed to be mere intended use of the claimed apparatus and thus met by the structure of Kim. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Kim discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the housing made of a dielectric material. However, Sickles, also in the art of electrostatic spraying discloses material traditionally used in the nozzle assembly includes dielectric material (column 7, lines 5-55) and therefore taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have included a housing as dielectric material as such is specifically taught by Sickles as conventional material for construction of the printhead assembly. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
As for the requirement of the grounded electrode below the emitter in the printhead inside the housing and adjacent to an inner surface of the house, US 002 discloses electrostatic spraying and discloses using dielectric housing (see e.g. column 8, lines 45-50 “dielectric tube”) with an electrode laminated on the interior surface thereof (Id. “electrode . . . laminated to the interior surface of the dielectric tube). US 002 discloses the conductive electrode is grounded to provide a path to ground to drain the accumulated charge (column 11, lines 35-60). Therefore, including an grounded conductive electrode on the interior of the dielectric housing would have been obvious so as to provide a path to ground to drain accumulated charge as suggested by US 002.
As for the requirement that the system comprises a grounded electrode that is entirely between the emitter and the orifice of the printhead, the examiner notes the comprising language. US 002 explicitly discloses the electrode on the interior can be various arrangements, including a single tubular electrode or a plurality of electrodes (column 8, lines 45-55) and therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and the reference for its entire teaching, it would have been obvious to have provide multiple electrodes and therefore it would have been obvious to have provided multiple electrodes on the interior of the dielectric housing, including an electrode that is entirely between the emitter and orifice as claimed, with a reasonably expectation of predictable results, as US 002 illustrates that dividing a single electrode into multiple electrodes requires no more than mere ordinary skill in the art.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner cites here WO 2014033186, also disclosing an electrostatic spraying device and including a plurality of electrodes entirely within the housing, between the emitter and orifice, that are grounded (Figure 5 an accompanying text, see also “The second electrode 200 serves as a ground electrode”, “the second electrode 200 is integrated into the housing 30”, “droplets D emitted from an electrified meniscus at the outlet 1 1 of the reservoir 10/first electrode 100 towards the second (counter) electrode 200. In this process, electrically charged droplets D are accelerated due to the interaction with the electrical field generated by the electrodes 100, 200 and affected by the Coulomb repulsion between the droplets D.”). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have included a ground electrode entirely within the housing as suggested by WO 186 to reap the benefits of electrostatic spraying from an emitter through a chamber to an orifice.
Claim 4: Kim discloses what can reasonably be considered a T junction (see e.g. relationship of gas junction, T-junction, to emitter and mixing chamber microfluidic T-Junction as claimed) and thus taking the references collectively and the breadth of the claims as drafted, Kim reads on including the T junction as such will necessarily meet this claim requirement as the claims are broadly drafted to merely require that the emitter and mixing receptable are “part” of the T-junction.
Claim 5: This claim is determined to be mere intended use of the claimed apparatus (material used for spraying) and thus met by the structure of Kim. Intended use of the claimed apparatus and thus met by the structure of Kim. Additionally, see e.g. Table 1. Additionally, see “dissolving a base compound in a suitable solvent” which can reasonably be a homogenous solution as claimed. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 6: This claim is determined to be mere intended use of the claimed apparatus (material used for spraying) and thus met by the structure of Kim. Additionally, see “dissolving a base compound in a suitable solvent” which can reasonably be a homogenous solution as claimed. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 7: Kim discloses an electrospray printing system, comprising: a printhead, comprising: a housing (22); a mixing receptacle in the housing (10) and operable to receive at a first inlet a solution (9) and receive at a second inlet an electrical potential that is applied to the solution to produce an electrically charged solution (14), the solution comprising a print material suspended in a solvent (intended use of claimed apparatus, also see Table 2); an emitter in the housing and operable to receive the electrically charged solution at a third inlet and emit the electrically charged solution at an outlet (Figure 1), a power supply operably connected to the mixing receptacle (see Figure 1 related to power applied to 24); and a device operable to supply the solution to the mixing receptacle (see supply vessel 2, figure 1), wherein: after the electrically charged solution is emitted from the emitter, a plume of electrically charged droplets form in the printhead (plume at Figure 1), the electrical potential producing an electric field that directs electrically charged droplets towards an orifice of the printhead (see plate 30, mask with holes therethrough, see e.g. column 4, lines 1-15 regarding focusing the charged liquid particles), the electrically charged droplets comprising the print material suspended in the solvent (intended use of claimed apparatus, also see Table 2) and directed towards a substrate (see e.g. 26 at Figure 1, additionally intended use of the claimed apparatus).
Claim 9: Kim discloses at least one air flow inlet in the housing and operable to provide a flow of air into the printhead (inlet 28) and an airflow controller to supply the air, see e.g. pipe which can reasonably be considered controller for supplying as claimed.
Claim 11: Kim discloses what can reasonably be considered a T junction (see e.g. relationship of gas junction, T-junction, to emitter and mixing chamber microfluidic T-Junction as claimed) and thus taking the references collectively and the breadth of the claims as drafted, Kim reads on including the T junction as such will necessarily meet this claim requirement as the claims are broadly drafted to merely require that the emitter and mixing receptable are “part” of the T-junction.
Claim 13: Kim discloses a print bed below the printhead, wherein the target substrate is on the print bed (see Figure 1, 32).
Claim 17: This is intended use of the claimed apparatus and thus met by the structure of Kim. Additionally, see “solid nanoparticles” at abstract which can read on dry particles as claimed. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 4, 9-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim with Sickles and US 002 alone or with WO 186 as applied above and further with US Patent Application Publication 20130323403 by Hoerr et al.
Claim 4 and 11: Kim with Sickles and US 002 alone or with WO 186 discloses all that is applied above; however, fails to disclose the microfluidic T-Junction as claimed. However, Hoerr, also in the art of electrospraying a substrate disclose the use of a T-Junction (see Figure 7A and 7B, see 180 related to T shaped configuration of the structure) and thus taking the references collectively and the breadth of the claims as drafted, it would have been obvious to have include the T junction as such will necessarily meet this claim requirement as the claims are broadly drafted to merely require that the emitter and mixing receptable are “part” of the T-junction.
Claim 9-10: While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner notes that Hoerr discloses a controller operable to supply a gas to the third inlet (0145, 0169, 0259) and a computing device that is connected to the device (0081) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Kim to use the control device to control flow rates and device as claimed as one would desire to modify Kim to reap the benefits of improving control of the electrospraying process.
Claim 12: Kim with Sickles and US 002 alone or with WO 186 fails to disclose the printhead is included in an enclosure; however, Hoerr discloses including the printhead in a defined volume (0080, Figure 8) and therefore including an enclosure would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include the printhead in an enclosure as such is taught by Hoerr as a known and suitable apparatus for electrostatic spraying an object. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim 14: Kim with Sickles and US 002 alone or with WO 186 fails to disclose the stage and movement as claimed. However, Hoerr, also in the art of electrospraying print system discloses moving the stage for the object (0198) and discloses moving the object and/or dispensing apparatus before, during or after coating process and configuring the apparatus to move either or both (0101) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to include a first stage and second stage as claimed to translate the coating object and the printhead to successfully and predictably electrospray objects. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Claim 15: Hoerr discloses moving in a first, second and third direction (see 0101, horizontal/vertical movement and radial movement).
Claim 16: Hoerr discloses imaging assessment of the plume for automation of printhead control (260-261) and therefore taking the references collectively including an imaging system operable to monitor the plume to provide for automation of control.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim with Sickles and US 002 alone or with WO 186 and further with US Patent Application Publication 20150266040 by Miller et al.
While the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here Miller, also in the art of nozzle for atomization (i.e. electrostatic at 0009) and discloses including in the nozzle a point of use mixing for multicomponent fluids supplied to the nozzle and such including a T junction micromixer for efficiently mixing fluids (0165). Therefore, taking references collectively including a T junction micromixer within the nozzle would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide efficient mixing of multicomponent fluids for atomization, as Kim explicitly discloses using multicomponent materials for atomization (Tables).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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 P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights