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 .
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, 2 & 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. 5. (Physics of Fluids Article: Making Droplets from highly viscous liquids by pushing a wire through a tube, Published online 22 March 2022) in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0216724) and Yamada et al. (US 20170120578).
Sun et al. disclose the following:
* Re clm 1, an electroprinting system/a new electro printing principle has been developed (Abst., pg. 3, para 2, fig 2);
* a voltage generator that produces a signal/a mechanical pusher driven by a programmable power supply, Instek PSS-2005 GP, and a pulse generator (BNC Model 505 pulse/delay generator/ (pg. 4, para 2, fig 2);
* a drop-on-demand (DOD) droplet generator/drop-on-demand printing, Abst., the wire- in-a-tube DOD generator (page 16, para 1) actuated by the signal of the voltage generator, the
drop generator having a wire for submersion into a viscous fluid/ the pusher moves the wire on demand with the frequency controlled by the pulse generator (page 5, para 1) and the drop generator having a wire for submersion into a viscous fluid (in the Initial position, the wire is secured inside the tube with its lower end completely submersed, (pg. 5, para 1, fig. 2a);
* a power supply connected to the wire for supplying current to the DOD droplet generaor/ a DC voltage can be applied to the wire, forcing the drop nearest to the tip of the wire to move to the tip and then jump to the target (pg. 6, para 1, fig. 2a (DC power source connected to wire).
* Re clm 2, wherein the power supply is a DC High Voltage Power Supply/a DC voltage can be applied to the wire (pg. 6, para 1, fig. 2a).
* Re clm 4, wherein the fluid has a viscosity ranging from 10-3 Pa*s up to 104 Pa*s/aqueous glycerol solutions of different weight percent of glycerol provided different shear viscosity ranging from eta = 894.5 to 1-1= 81.92 mPas/ (pg. 16, para 3).
* Re clm 5, wherein the droplet is spherical (pg. 19, para 1)/ink droplet forms a spherical shape while in flight due to surface tension, which pulls the liquid molecules in the tightest and lowest possible energy configuration/. Furthermore, a particular configuration is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations to a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces. See Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 US 1, 148 USPQ 459, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Moverover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize wherein the droplet is spherical, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art.
Sun et al. does not disclose the following claimed limitation:
* Re clm 1, a grounded collector for collection of the droplet generated by the DOD
droplet generator.
* Re clms 1 & 4, sol fluid
Lee et al. discloses the following:
* nozzle printing (Abst.);
* Re clm 1, a grounded collector/50/ for collection of the droplet generated by the DOD
droplet generator/the collector is configured to be grounded in order to have a grounding
property relative to the high voltage applied to the nozzle/30/ (paras 0068-0069).
Yamada et al. disclose the following:
* Re clms 1 & 4, sol fluid (para 0241).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a printing system having nozzles wherein a grounded collector for collection of the droplet generated by the DOD droplet generator (Lee et al.), sol fluid (Yamada et al.), as taught by Lee et al. and Yamada et al. for the purpose of providing a grounding property relative to the wire to attract the droplets and for the purpose of providing a liquid ejecting apparatus and system capable of realizing both an improvement in quality of a result of liquid ejection and appropriate charging.
Claim(s) 6, 8-16 & 19, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Physics of Fluids Article: Making Droplets from highly viscous liquids by pushing a wire through a tube, Published online 22 March 2022) in view of Yamada et al. (US 20170120578).
Sun et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
* Re clms 6 & 9, a drop-on-demand (DOD) droplet generator & method of electroprinting of a viscous fluid/a new electroprinting principle has been developed (Abst., pg 3, para 2, fig 2);
* plunging or threading a wire through a meniscus of a viscous fluid, and an applied electrical potential to form a droplet from the viscous fluid /title, the pusher moves the wire on demand with the frequency controlled by the pulse generator (pg 5, para 1);
* inside the tube the meniscus forms two contact lines: E at the tube wall and D at the wire, (fig 3); and
*an applied electrical potential forms a droplet from the viscous fluid/a DC voltage applied to the wire, forcing the drop nearest to the tip of the wire to move to the tip and then to jump to the target/ (pg. 6, para 1);
* wherein the droplet is spherical/forms in flight due to surface tension, which pulls the liquid molecules in the tightest and lowest possible energy configuration. Furthermore, a particular configuration is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations to a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces. See Graham V. John Deere Co., 383 US 1, 148 USPQ 459, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Moverover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize wherein the droplet is spherical, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art.
* Re clms 7, wherein the fluid is selected from the group consisting of a sol-gel, liquid metal, polymeric resin, two- phase slurry, and a combination thereof/ BCF-based sol is a precursor for the sol/gel processing of advanced ceramics. to obtain a high yield of the final product, the BCF-based sol was prepared with a high concentration of Ba, Ce, and Fe ions resulting in very viscous ink/ (pg. 28, para 2).
* Re clms 8 & 21, wherein sol- get has a high metal ion content./BCF-based sol is a precursor for the sol/gel processing of advanced ceramics. to obtain a high yield of the final product, the BCF-based sol was prepared with a high concentration of Ba, Ce, and Fe ions resulting in very viscous ink/ (pg. 28, para 2).
* Re clm 10, wherein plunging or threading the wire occurs at an accelerating speed/speed increases as the wire is pushed/ (pg. 17, para 2).
* Re clm 11, wherein the applied electrical potential produces a charge on a surface of * the viscous fluid/once the droplet is formed it can be detach mechanically,, for example by
shaking or spinning the wire or using an electric field by charging the drop (pg. 3, para 2).
* Re clm 12, wherein the droplet forms on an end of the wire when an electrostatic force overcomes surface tension of the viscous fluid/when a film of the ink is deposited on the wire, it cannot stay there as a coating film; its surface tension forces the layer to collapse into a drop due to the Plateau-Rayleigh instability, pg. 3, para 2).
* Re clm 13, wherein the applied electrical potential creates an electric field that detaches the droplet from the wire/once the droplet if formed, one can detach it mechanically for example by shaking or spinning the wire or using an electric field by charging the drop (pg. 3, para 2).
* Re clm 14, wherein the detached droplet is drawn to a collector plate/forcing the drop nearest to the tip of the wire to move to the tip and then jump to the target (pg. 6, para 1, fig 2a).
* Re clm 15, wherein a total amount of fluid available for the formation of each droplet is controlled by a diameter of the wire/five tungsten wires with 2R 0 = 150, 2RO = 125, 2RO= 100, 2RO = 75, and 2R 0 =50 um diameters were used in experiments. The strength of the tungsten wires guarantees their durability during the long-time printing. Two different tubes with the inner diameter of 2R1 = 1100 and 2R1 = 1570 Ilrmwere used to study the influence of gap thickness on the features of the drop formation/ (pg. 16, para 2).
* Re clm 16, wherein a total amount of fluid available for the formation of each droplet is controlled by speed of the plunging action/The size of the final drop is mostly controlled by the
stick-out length of the wire/depends on speed of wire/ and the wire radius/ (pg. 27, para 3).
* Re clm 19, wherein the fluid has a viscosity ranging from 10-3 Pa*s up to 104 Pa*s/ aqucous glycerol solutions of different weight percent of glycerol provided different shear viscosity ranging from eta= 894.5 to 1-1= 81.92 mPas/ (pg. 16, para 3).
* Re clm 22, wherein the droplet is used in a field selected from the group consisting of ceramic microsphere production, micro soldering electronics, high resolution production of screen printing masks, precision dosing of high viscosity chemicals, high resolution additive manufacturing, and a combination thereof/to increase the viscosity even further, a highly concentrated Ba-Ce-Fe-based sol (BCF) was prepared that is used for making ceramic fuel cells microdroplets, pg. 16, para 2).
Sun et al. does not disclose the following claimed limitations:
* Re clms 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, sol fluid
Yamada et al. disclose the following:
* Re clms 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21, sol fluid (para 0241)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize sol fluid, taught by Yamada et al. into Sun et al. for the purpose of providing a liquid ejecting apparatus and a liquid ejecting system capable of realizing both an improvement in quality of a result of liquid ejection and appropriate charging.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Physics of Fluids Article: Making Droplets from highly viscous liquids by pushing a wire
through a tube, Published online 22 March 2022) a modified by Yamada et al. (US
2017/0120578).
Sun et al. as modifed by Yamada et al. disclose the following:
* Re clm 17, a frequency wherein the printhead frequency equals 20Hz (pg, 2, para 2).
Sun et al. as modifed by Yamada et al. does not disclose the following claimed limitation:
* Re clm 17, wherein a droplet is printed with a frequency in a range of 1 Hz to 3 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize wherein a droplet is printed with a frequency in a range of I Hz to 3 Hz., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Jn re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize wherein a droplet is printed with a frequency in a range of I Hz to 3 Hz., into Sun et al. as modified by Yamada et al. for the purpose of adjusting printing speed of the printed images.
Response to Arguments
7. Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the cited references and the combination and that Yamada teaches away from the claimed invention is noted. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya,,184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). Since, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
In other words, the test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of the disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one or ordinary skill in the art. A reference is to be considered not only for what it expressly states, but for what it would reasonably have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. References are evaluated by what they suggest rather than by their specific disclosures.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning is noted. However, it mut be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Yamada does not include certain features of Applicant;s invention or that Yamada teaches away from the claimed invention is noted. However, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e. requiring a specific configuration of its liquid ejecting apparatus as well as a first frequency band and a second frequency band for the drive signal generation, see paragraph [0008], [0013], and [0014]) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is the claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064).
Furthermore, although these elements are found in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides not evidence to indicated that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to dispute terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Communication With The USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to KRISTAL FEGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2254.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-530pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
/KRISTAL FEGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights