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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 paragraph 3, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of 07/01/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 paragraph 2-4, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Lopez (US20190070860).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 last paragraph through pg 8 line 6, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8, 10, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Lopez (US20190070860).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term "the head" in line 3 which should read -the inkjet printing head-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1--9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lishner (WO2019130293A1 – previously of record) in view of Lopez (US20190070860).
In reference to claim 1:
Lishner discloses a printing system (Fig. 1), comprising:
an inkjet printing head having a plurality of nozzles (pg 6 ln 32-pg 7 ln 5, Figs. 3A-3C);
a container, containing a liquid material and being in fluid communication with said head by a conduit for feeding said head with said liquid material (pg 15 ln 10-19, Fig. 1 numeral 330);
a pressure sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a pressure at an outlet of said conduit (pg 16 ln 12-pg 17 ln 34; Fig. 3E numeral 62); and
a controller, configured to control said head to dispense through said nozzles liquid material received via said conduit, and to calculate at least one jetting characteristic based on said pressure (pg 16 ln 22-34 disclosing the signal generated by the pressure sensor can be used for estimating the volume of liquid material that is dispensed out of the nozzles).
Lishner does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressure sensor is configured to generate a signal indicative of a dynamic pressure at an outlet of said conduit due to resistance to flow of said liquid material within said conduit. However, this would have been obvious in view of Lopez. Lopez teaches a printing system (abstract, para 0016). Lopez further teaches a pressure sensor for generating a signal indicative of a dynamic pressure at an outlet of a conduit due to a resistance to flow of said liquid within said conduit (paras 0011-0012) in order to measure print fluid pressure and enable proper functioning of the print device (para 0015) in device where the printhead is at a location remote from the printhead (para 0001). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the printing system of Lishner with the pressure sensor of Lopez in order to obtain a printing system which enables proper function where the printhead is at a location remote from the printhead.
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner further discloses wherein said at least one jetting characteristic comprises an average drop mass dispensed from said head (pg 23 ln 30-pg 24 ln 12, Fig. 7A).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 2, above, Lishner further discloses wherein said controller is configured to adjust a voltage applied to said head based on said calculated average drop mass (pg 18 ln 10-13, pg 19 ln 6-34, pg 20 ln 29-pg 21 ln 2).
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner further discloses wherein said at least one jetting characteristic comprises a mass change per number of dispensing events from said nozzles (pg 16 ln 22-34, pg 23 ln 30-pg 24 ln 12, pg 24 ln 27-34).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner further discloses wherein said at least one jetting characteristic comprises a number of operative nozzles in said head (pg 2 ln 13-16, pg 3 ln 3-12, pg 19 ln 16-34).
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 5, above, Lishner further discloses wherein said controller is configured to identify among said plurality of nozzles a subset of nozzles in which at least one nozzle is defective, based on said number of operative nozzles (pg 19 ln 25-34, pg 27 ln 12-16).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 5, above, Lishner further discloses wherein said controller is configured to individually identify a defective nozzle among said plurality of nozzles, based on said number of operative nozzles (pg 19 ln 25-34, pg 27 ln 12-16).
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner further discloses wherein the dispensing rate of each head depends on the number of nozzles, type of nozzles and the applied voltage signal rate (pg 7 ln 6-13). Lishner further discloses utilizing a specific number of drops, from a print head having a specific number of nozzles, firing at a specific rate, yields a set mass per unit time, e.g. a mass flow rate (para 0149). Lishner does not explicitly disclose wherein said at least one jetting characteristic comprises a mass flow rate through said nozzles. While not explicitly disclosing calculating the mass flow rate, it is the Examiner’s position that the system of Lishner would render the limitation “wherein said at least one jetting characteristic comprises a mass flow rate through said nozzles” obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as Lishner explicitly discloses depositing a specific amount of material in a specific amount of time, e.g. mass flow rate.
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner further discloses wherein said controller is configured to receive computer print data from an external source, and to calculate said at least one jetting characteristic while forming printed patterns according to said computer print data (pg 2 ln 7-12, pg 9 ln 11-28, pg 21 ln 25-30).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner further discloses being a two-dimensional printing system (pg 3 ln 26-27).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner further discloses being a three-dimensional printing system (pg 3 ln 28-29).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lishner and Lopez as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Buller (US20220379381 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 9, above, Lishner does not disclose wherein said controller is configured to execute a noise reduction procedure. However, this would have been obvious in view of Buller. Buller teaches an inkjet printing system (para 0164). Buller further teaches the printing system comprises a control system comprising one or more sensors to alter the printing instructions and that confidence in the sensor data may relate to the noise level of the sensor measurements (para 0174). Buller further teaches the controller reduces the noise from the detected signal (para 0233), which would increase the confidence in the sensor date. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Lishner with the noise reduction of Buller in order to obtain a system which provided greater confidence in the sensor data.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lishner and Lopez as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Hatanaka (US20200103847 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner fails to disclose wherein said head is at a higher level than said container. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the instant application, this would have been obvious in view of Hatanaka. Hatanaka teaches an inkjet printing system (para 0030). Hatanaka further teaches the system having a head having a plurality of nozzles (para 0036), a container containing a liquid material and being in fluid communication with the head by a conduit (Fig. 1). Hatanaka further teaches positioning the head at a higher level than the container (Figs. 1 and 4 showing the base of the containers being below the base of the head. This is withing the broadest reasonable interpretation of “at a higher level”. See MPEP 2111.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flow layout of Lishner with the flow layout of Hatanaka as each is recognized in the art for feeding material to a printhead and the combination yields predictable results, e.g. the container is positioned below the printhead and mounted to the apparatus in a known way.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lishner and Lopez as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Sawase (JP2019001000A – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Lishner fails to disclose wherein said head is at a lower level than said container, wherein said container feeds the head via a sub-tank having an opening to the atmosphere and being connected to said head by said conduit. However, this is taught by Sawase. Sawase teaches an inkjet printing system (paras 0001-0002, 0144). Sawase further teaches positioning the head (Fig. 11 numeral 100) at a lower level than said container (Fig. 11 numeral 201), wherein said container feeds the head via a sub-tank (Fig. 11 numeral 220) having an opening to atmosphere (Fig. 11 numeral 222) and being connected to said head by said conduit (Fig. 11 numeral 301) reduces the risk of liquid leakage from the nozzle or bubble entrainment (paras 0130-0131). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Lishner with the container, sub-tank, inkjet printing head, and orientation thereof, as taught by Sawase, in order to obtain a system with reduced risk of leaks from the nozzle or bubble entrainment.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1745