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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 02/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application. Claims 8-15 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/06/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims 5-7 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claim 1 is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-7 as previously recited in the Non-Final rejection mailed 11/13/2025 has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection of claims 1-4 and 7 is made in view of Anseth (US 2018/0371117 A1) in view of Cruz-Uribe (US 2005/0024448 A1). A new ground of rejection of claims 5-6 is made in view of Anseth (US 2018/0371117 A1) in view of Cruz-Uribe (US 2005/0024448 A1) and Lopez Garcia (US 2016/0122566 A1). The rejection of claims 1-7 may be found below.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner interprets the claimed bio-ink printer component as an apparatus in light of ¶0005 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anseth (US 2018/0371117 A1) in view of Cruz-Uribe (US 2005/0024448 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Anseth teaches a bio-ink printer component comprising a bio-ink comprising a buffer solution that is suitable for live cells and a polymer comprising polyethylene glycol, wherein the bio-ink further comprises live cells, and wherein the buffer solution comprises phosphate buffered saline (PBS). (¶0014-0015,0018-0019,0033,0050,0052).
Anseth does not teach a bio-ink printer component further comprising a bio-ink ejector fluidly connected or connectable to the bio-ink, wherein the bio-ink ejector comprises an ejection nozzle and a thermal resistor positioned to heat the bio-ink to form a vapor bubble to eject a droplet of bio-ink from the ejection nozzle, nor a substrate positioned to receive the droplet of the bio-ink ejected from the ejection nozzle
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (ejector comprising an ejection nozzle and a thermal resistor configured to form a vapor bubble and to eject a droplet; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Cruz-Uribe teaches the known technique of a fluid ejection array element 303 (ejector) fluidly connected or connectable to any fluid material such as inks or biological reagents as well as fluids containing dissolved or dispersed solids in one or more solvents, wherein the fluid ejection array element 303 comprises a nozzle 329 (ejection nozzle) and a fluid ejector 320 including an energy converting element 322 in the form of a thermal resistor, wherein an electrical energy impulse applied across the thermal resistor rapidly heats at least one component in the fluid above its boiling point causing vaporization of the fluid component resulting in an expanding bubble that ejects fluid drop 304 (a thermal resistor positioned to heat the fluid to form a vapor bubble to eject a droplet of from the ejection nozzle) (Fig 3a and ¶0038-0042).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the component disclosed in Anseth by applying the known technique of an ejector comprising an ejection nozzle and a thermal resistor configured to form a vapor bubble and to eject a droplet disclosed in Cruz-Uribe to the component disclosed in Anseth such the bio-ink printer component further comprises a bio-ink ejector fluidly connected or connectable to the bio-ink, wherein the bio-ink ejector comprises an ejection nozzle and a thermal resistor positioned to heat the bio-ink to form a vapor bubble to eject a droplet of bio-ink from the ejection nozzle with predictable results and resulting in an improved component. MPEP 2143(D).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, although Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe do not specify a component wherein the polymer is present in an amount from about 1 wt % to about 3 wt % with respect to the total weight of the bio-ink. However, an increased presence of the polymer (PEG) in the bio-ink has an inverse relationship to the viscosity of the bio-ink.
Since this particular parameter is recognized as result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the component disclosed in Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe via routine optimization such that the polymer is present in an amount from about 1 wt % to about 3 wt % with respect to the total weight of the bio-ink to yield an expected result in order to control the bio-ink viscosity. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, although Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe do not specify a component wherein the nozzle 329 (ejection nozzle) has a width from about 20 micrometers to about 80 micrometers, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the form or shape of nozzle 329 to have a width from about 20 micrometers to about 80 micrometers, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anseth (US 2018/0371117 A1) in view of Cruz-Uribe (US 2005/0024448 A1), as applied to claim 1, Lopez Garcia (US 2016/0122566 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, as applied to claim 1, Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe teach a component further comprising a fluid receiving medium 209 (substrate positioned to receive the droplet ejected from the ejection nozzle) (Cruz-Uribe, Fig 2a-2b and ¶0033-0037).
Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe do not specify a component wherein substrate comprises a well-plate, a petri dish, a layer of previously-printed cells, glass, hydrogel, or a cellular scaffold.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (substrates for bubble-jet printing; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Lopez Garcia discloses a known technique of using a “bubble-jet” printing type to print droplets on glass (¶0004).
Lopez Garcia discloses that glass functions to receive print droplets (substituted components and their functions were known in the art; see MPEP 2143(B)).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the component disclosed in Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe by substituting the substrate (receiving medium) disclosed in Cruz-Uribe with the glass disclosed in Lopez Garcia since the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B).
While Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe and Lopez Garcia disclose a component wherein the fluid receiving medium 209 is positioned in a location so that the fluid ejectors disposed on fluid ejector array 202 may eject drops of fluid to place dots onto fluid receiving medium 209 as desired (Cruz-Uribe, ¶0037), Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe and Lopez Garcia do not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is positioned or positionable at a distance from about 5 mm to about 20 mm away from the ejection nozzle nor wherein the substrate is positioned at a distance from about 5 mm to about 20 mm away from the ejection nozzle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the component disclosed in Anseth in view of Cruz-Uribe and Lopez Garcia such that wherein substrate is positioned or positionable at a distance from about 5 mm to about 20 mm away from the ejection nozzle and wherein the substrate is positioned at a distance from about 5 mm to about 20 mm away from the ejection nozzle with a reasonable expectation of success in order to eject drops of fluid to place dots onto the substrate as desired (Cruz-Uribe, ¶0037).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhuravlev (RU-2558290-C1) teaches an apparatus wherein the unit for outputting cells to a substrate (6) is a 3D inkjet printer, to which a hydrogel introduction device (17) is connected, and under which a substrate for printing is placed, onto which droplets containing living cells are discharged through a transfer head (19) (Fig 2 and Pg 10, Ln 39-42).
Han (US 2021/0238541 A1) teaches an apparatus wherein drops are deposited on a glass well-plate to form a line array (¶0032).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights