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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/6/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0301550; hereafter ‘550). As evidenced by Zimmerling and Chen (Bioprinting 20 (2020) e00104; hereafter Zimmerling).
Claim 1: ‘550 is directed towards an inkjet printing apparatus (see Fig. 3A, title, abstract, & ¶ 9; as evidenced by Zimmerling, acoustical printing is a form of inkjet printing, see §2.2, Inkjet printing) comprising:
a head module including a plurality of head nozzles (see Figs. 4A-4E, ¶s 28-34) and at least one cooling member (Fig. 2 & ¶ 52), wherein the plurality of head nozzles are arranged in a row along a first direction and configured to discharge a liquid body on a substrate (see Figs. 4A-4E), which moves along a second direction crossing the first direction (see ¶ 46), and the cooling member is spaced apart from the plurality of head nozzles in the second direction and configured to compensate for a temperature of the substrate (Fig. 2 and ¶s 28, 37, & 52); and
a control module which provides a control signal for controlling the cooling member to the head module (28, Fig. 2 and ¶s 37-38 & 52).
Claim 2: The control signal is a signal for controlling a temperature of the cooling member in response to an amount of thermal expansion of the substrate (¶ 37).
Claim 3: The control signal is a signal for controlling a separation distance between the cooling member and the substrate in response to an amount of thermal expansion of the substrate (thermal expansion is a noted deviation from the desired result, ¶ 37, and the temperature control can be used to shrink or contract the printhead, ¶ 52; i.e. controlling the separation distance between the cooling member connected to the printhead and the substrate).
Claim 4: The apparatus prints a first fiducial mark on the substrate and measures an amount of thermal expansion based on said mark (¶ 37).
Claim 5: The first fiducial mark is positioned at the edge of the substrate (¶ 37).
Claim 11: The head module moves along the first direction (¶ 46).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘550. As evidenced by Zimmerling.
Claim 6: ‘550 teaches that position of the first fiducial mark is measured optically (¶ 37) and the control module provides the control signal based on the measured position of the first fiducial mark (¶s 37).
‘550 does not teach that the optical measure device is a camera.
However, the Examiner notes that cameras are art recognized optical measurement device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a camera as the optical measurement device in the apparatus of ‘550 because they are an art recognized optical measurement device and it is prima facie to use art recognized alternatives for the same purpose.
Claim 9: ‘550 does not provide the surface area of the cooling member or its relative size to the surface are of the plurality of head nozzles.
However, the surface area of a cooling device is result effective variable based on the desired cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the surface area of the cooling member to obtain the desired result because it is prima facie obvious to optimize result effective variables.
Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to change shape and size. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)&(B).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘550 and further in view of Takano et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0141062; hereafter ‘062). As evidenced by Zimmerling.
Claim 10: ‘550 does not teach the cooling means.
However, ‘062, which is directed towards inkjet printers (title) discloses that cooling pipes with water cooling water flows from a cooling water supply is a means of cooling in the field (¶ 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘062 into ‘550 and use cooling pipes through which cooling water flows from a cooling water supply as the means of cooling in the ‘550 apparatus because it is an art recognized means of cooling and would have supplied the desired cooling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 & 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights