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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. Claim 1 contains the limitation “a pressure sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a dynamic pressure at an outlet” (ln 6-7, emphasis added). The use of “indicative” renders the claim broad enough such that the pressure sensor need not measure the actual dynamic pressure but could instead measure a total pressure which can then be used to calculate the dynamic pressure.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lishner relies on pressure information from the printhead for estimating dispensed volume or mass while Lopez places the pressure sensor upstream of a valve and performs the pressure reading while the valve is close (pg 7 ln 13) and the combination would render Lishner unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (pg 7 ln 14-18). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant has correctly characterized the pressure information of Lishner, Lopez explicitly discloses performing pressure monitoring while the valve is open (para 0006, Fig. 8; para 0012 stating “However, it will be appreciated that in other examples, the pressure sensor controller 112 may additionally initiate pressure monitoring outside of a dosed [sic] period of the valve, for example, to monitor the dynamic component of pressure, or when it is known that there is no flow of the respective print fluid, or for other purposes”, it appears the use of “dosed” is intended as “closed”; para 0034 disclosing “the pressure may additionally be monitored outside of closed periods of the valve”). As such the additional pressure monitoring of Lopez would not render the apparatus of Lishner unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Applicant next argues claim 1 requires a controller configured to control the inkjet printing head to dispense liquid material through the nozzles and to calculate at least one jetting characteristic based on the pressure while Lopez requires that the pressure reading be obtained when the valve is closed and the sensor is isolated from the head (pg 7 ln 19-pg 8 ln 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Lopez explicitly discloses performing pressure monitoring while the valve is open (para 0006, Fig. 8; para 0012 stating “However, it will be appreciated that in other examples, the pressure sensor controller 112 may additionally initiate pressure monitoring outside of a dosed [sic] period of the valve, for example, to monitor the dynamic component of pressure, or when it is known that there is no flow of the respective print fluid, or for other purposes”, it appears the use of “dosed” is intended as “closed”; para 0034 disclosing “the pressure may additionally be monitored outside of closed periods of the valve”).
Additionally, the current application discloses that the change in dynamic pressure and static pressure can be estimated using the same pressure sensor (para 00125 as published). As such, no additional structure is required to “generate a signal indicative of the dynamic pressure” (emphasis added) as required in the claim.
A limitation requiring the calculation be based on the dynamic pressure would overcome the current rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a pressure sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of a dynamic pressure” and “a controller…to calculate at least one jetting characteristic based on said pressure”. However, it is unclear what “said pressure” is referring to. While it appears to refer to the indicated “dynamic pressure”, there is no specific requirement and , as such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not the calculation be based on the dynamic pressure. See MPEP 2111.
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 ink supply 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 is able to monitor pressure while print fluid is being discharged and ensure proper functioning of the device (paras 0012, 0013, 0015, 0034).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
After search the prior art regarded as nearest the claimed invention is Lishner (WO2019130293A1 – previously of record). 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 and the remaining prior art available fail to teach wherein said controller is configured to calculate said at least one jetting characteristic based on a correlation between said dynamic pressure and a pressure in an interior of said inkjet printing head relative to an atmosphere outside said inkjet printing head. The Office is unable to discern a reasonable rationale from the prior art that such features are taught, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanchez (US20230234383A1)
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights