Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/511,321

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVED LIQUID DROPLET EJECTION FROM A GAS PRESSURIZED PRINTHEAD VIA ARBITRARY PRESSURE AND VACUUM PULSED WAVEFORMS

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Examiner
LIANG, ANTHONY M
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 659 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 659 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
CTNF 18/511,321 CTNF 92170 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-16 , drawn to a system , classified in B33Y30/00 . II. Claim s 17-18 , drawn to a system , classified in B29C64/20 . 08-09 AIA III. Claim 19 , drawn to a printhead , classified in B29C64/209 . 08-10 AIA IV. Claim 20 , drawn to a method for droplet-based printing , classified in B33Y10/00 . 08-13 AIA The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: 08-14-01 AIA Inventions Groups I and II are directed to related products . The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design . Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. 08-15 Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a printhead having first, second, and third ports. The subcombination has separate utility such as for a system without a controller. The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. 08-17 AIA Inventions IV and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus without a controller . Inventions II and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a printhead having first, second, and third ports. The subcombination has separate utility such as for a system without a controller . 08-17 AIA Inventions IV and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus without a controller . 08-17 AIA Inventions IV and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as an apparatus without first, second, and third ports . 08-21 Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: - The inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23 During a telephone conversation with Mark D. Elchuk on 2/20/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions. 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2-16 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 2 recites “outflow/vacuum port.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “outflow” and “vacuum” modify “port,” or only one of “outflow” and “vacuum” are required. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pressure pulse" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and is thus also rejected for the same reason. Claim 3 recites “outflow/vacuum valve.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “outflow” and “vacuum” modify “valve,” or only one of “outflow” and “vacuum” are required. Similarly, claim 3 recites “outflow/vacuum port.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “outflow” and “vacuum” modify “port,” or only one of “outflow” and “vacuum” are required. Claim 4 recites “ambient/offset port.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “ambient” and “offset” modify “port,” or only one of “outflow” and “vacuum” are required. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pressure pulse" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and is thus also rejected for the same reason. Claim 5 recites “ambient/offset valve.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “ambient” and “offset” modify “valve,” or only one of “ambient” and “offset” are required. Similarly, claim 5 recites “ambient/offset port.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “ambient” and “offset” modify “port,” or only one of “ambient” and “offset” are required. Claim 6 recites “inflow/pressure port.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “inflow” and “pressure” modify “port,” or only one of “inflow” and “pressure” are required. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pressure pulse" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and is thus also rejected for the same reason. Claim 7 recites “inflow/pressure valve.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “inflow” and “pressure” modify “valve,” or only one of “inflow” and “pressure” are required. Similarly, claim 7 recites “inflow/pressure port.” It is unclear whether the slash (/) means “and” or “or.” In other words, it is unclear whether both “inflow” and “pressure” modify “port,” or only one of “inflow” and “pressure” are required. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the feedstock input port" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that independent claim 1 recites “feedstock infeed port” and not “feedstock input port.” Claims 9 and 10 are dependent on claim 8 and are thus also rejected for the same reasons. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 11 recites the limitation " the pressure pulse " in the last line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the feedstock material" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that independent claim 1 recites a “feedstock” and not a “feedstock material.” Claims 13-14 are dependent on claim 12 and are thus also rejected for the same reasons. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the feedstock material" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that independent claim 1 recites a “feedstock” and not a “feedstock material.” Claim 16 recites the limitation "the feedstock material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that independent claim 1 recites a “feedstock” and not a “feedstock material.” Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim 1 is allowed. 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 2-16 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the system for droplet-based printing as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Vader et al. (US 2019/0351488), hereinafter “Vader,” teaches a system for droplet-based printing comprising a controller, a printhead system having a housing with an internal cavity and a nozzle at a lower end thereof, the internal cavity configured to hold a quantity of liquid therein, a feedstock infeed ort in communication with the internal cavity for enabling a feedstock to be fed into the internal cavity, the feedstock being contained within the internal cavity as a liquid feedstock (Abstract, Fig. 1-3, 8A, 8B, [0006]-[0007], [0019]-[0022], [0032]). However, Vader fails to teach or adequately suggest wherein a valve system in communication with the controller and configured to selectively generate a positive gauge pressure to the internal cavity in response to control signals received from the controller, to apply a vacuum negative gauge pressure to the internal cavity, and to further modify a pressure level within the internal cavity to create a pressure waveform with characteristics tailored to characteristics of the liquid feedstock and nozzle geometry, which causes ejection of a quantity of feedstock that at least one of produces a droplet or a jet that controllably breaks into droplets from the nozzle after leaving the nozzle, as required by claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art. Claims 2-16 further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and are thus also distinct over the teachings of the prior art . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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. /ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/511,321 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/511,321 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/511,321 Page 4 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/511,321 Page 5 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/511,321 Page 6 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/511,321 Page 7 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/511,321 Page 8 Art Unit: 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601038
NON-ORIENTED ELECTRICAL STEEL SHEET, MOTOR CORE, AND PRODUCTION METHODS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601037
STEEL HAVING HIGH MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601039
FERRITIC STAINLESS STEEL AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584183
MOLTEN IRON DEPHOSPHORIZATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583032
METHOD FOR PREPARING A LOW-TEMPERATURE SINTERING SILVER PASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+9.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 659 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month