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 .
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.
Claim(s) 31-44 and 51-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (U.S. 2005/0206673 A1) in view of Higa et al. (U.S. 2005/0099456 A1).
Levin et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 31, a fluid component (32, §§0018-0047 and Fig. 3) for a continuous inkjet printer (Title, Figs. 1-2), comprising:
at least two ducts (e.g. 24, 110, §§0018-0047 and Fig. 3), each duct having an inner surface and each duct extending between a first end and a second end,
at least one fluid inlet formed by the first end of the at least two ducts (Fig. 3) and at least one fluid outlet formed by the second end of the at least two ducts (Fig. 3), and
an end part comprising at least one fluid connection area comprising at least one of said at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid outlet (e.g. via the part of tubular member 154 adjacent to orifice 36, and the vacuum conduit 110, §§0028-0030 and Fig. 3),
the end part being configured to connect the fluid component to at least one other fluid component or to a part of an ink supply circuit of the continuous inkjet printer
said fluid component being a one-piece fluid component made of a single material chemically resistant to at least one organic solvent (§0018: PEEK is inherently chemically resistant to at least one organic solvent; however, any material is inherently, to some extent, chemically resistant to at least one organic solvent),
the at least two ducts being embedded in the one-piece fluid component (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 32, wherein the fluid component comprises at least one of a fluid manifold, part of a printing head, a hydraulic distributor, a fluid damper, a fluid connector, at least one chamber for a sensor, or a damping chamber (§§0017-0047 and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 33, comprising at least two fluid connection areas (e.g. the part of tubular member 154 adjacent to orifice 36, and the vacuum conduit 110, §§0028-0030 and Fig. 3) extending in different planes.
Regarding Claim 34, said material being chemically resistant to ethanol and/or methyl isopropyl ketone (MIPK) and/or methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (§0018: PEEK is inherently chemically resistant to ethanol and/or methyl isopropyl ketone (MIPK) and/or methyl ethyl ketone (MEK); however, any material is inherently, to some extent, chemically resistant to ethanol and/or methyl isopropyl ketone (MIPK) and/or methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)).
Regarding Claim 35, wherein at least one of said ducts comprises a directional transition having an edge with a radius of curvature tangential to a flow direction of the fluid in said duct (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 37, said at least 2 ducts extending along non-parallel directions or intersecting with each other (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 38, said at least 2 ducts extending in a same plane or in different planes (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 39, said at least 2 ducts being coupled together with a mechanical link (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 40, said chemically resistant material comprising stainless steel, or a ceramic material, or a plastic material or a glass material (§0018).
Regarding Claim 41, at least one O-ring groove or counterbore around said at least one fluid inlet and/or said at least one fluid outlet (e.g. the part of tubular member 154 adjacent to orifice 36, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 43, wherein said first fluid component is assembled with a second fluid component (e.g. 144, §§0014, 0029 and Figs. 2-3) connected with said fluid connection area of the first fluid component, wherein said second fluid component comprises at least one of a valve, a pump, a filter, a damper, a fluid connector or a hydraulic distributor, said second fluid component comprising at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid outlet which matches with said at least one of said fluid inlet and said fluid outlet of the first fluid component, so that at least one fluid can circulate from said first fluid component to said second fluid component and/or vice versa.
Regarding Claim 44, a continuous inkjet (CIJ) printer, comprising:
- an ink supply system comprising an ink circuit (§0014, 0029 and Figs. 1-2),
- a portion for receiving an ink cartridge (86, §§0023-0025 and Figs. 1-2) and a portion for receiving a solvent cartridge (62, §0021 and Fig. 2);
- at least one fluid component according to claim 31.
Levin et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 51, said at least 2 ducts extending in different planes (Fig. 3).
Regarding independent Claim 31, wherein at least part of said fluid connection area has a roughness of less than 5 mm and at least part of the inner surface of at least one duct has a roughness of less than 10 mm.
Regarding Claim 36, a succession of layers in said chemically resistant material, each layer having a thickness of between 5 mm and 300 mm. However, the resultant structure is continuous, and the product appears to be substantially identical to that disclosed by Levin et al.. Therefore, Claim 36 is unpatentable over prior art. See MPEP §2113.
Regarding Claim 42, at least part of at least one duct having a wall with a thickness between 1 mm and 10 mm. However, Levin et al. do teach both the comparative scale (“the relatively small diameter of orifice 36, which may be on the order of 66 micron”, §0030) and the motivation to optimize (“ratio of flow through conduits 50, 110 depends on the amount of vacuum in those conduits and on the geometric dimensions of those conduits”, §0030). Furthermore, the wall thickness is inherently related to the geometry of the conduits, at least as needed for mechanical stability. Therefore, at least part of at least one duct having a wall with a thickness between 1 mm and 10 mm amounts to no more than routine optimization, and as such is unpatentable over prior art. See MPEP §2144.05 IIA.
Regarding Claim 52, wherein said roughness of said at least part of the inner surface of at least one duct is 1.5-10 mm.
Regarding Claim 53, wherein said roughness of said at least part of the inner surface of at least one duct is 1.5-3 mm.
Higa et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 31, wherein at least part of said fluid connection area has a roughness of less than 5 mm and at least part of the inner surface of at least one duct has a roughness of less than 10 mm (§0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the roughness of Higa et al. to the fluid component of Levin et al. to reduce the possibility of bubbles attaching to excessively rough surfaces and obstructing fluid flow.
Regarding Claim 52, wherein said roughness of said at least part of the inner surface of at least one duct is 1.5-10 mm (§0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the roughness of Higa et al. to the fluid component of Levin et al. to reduce the possibility of bubbles attaching to excessively rough surfaces and obstructing fluid flow.
Regarding Claim 53, wherein said roughness of said at least part of the inner surface of at least one duct is 1.5-3 mm (§0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the roughness of Higa et al. to the fluid component of Levin et al. to reduce the possibility of bubbles attaching to excessively rough surfaces and obstructing fluid flow.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin et al. (U.S. 2005/0206673 A1) and Higa et al. (U.S. 2005/0099456 A1) as applied to Claim 44 above, and further in view of Michallon (U.S. 2017/0120616 A1).
Levin et al. and Higa et al., in combination, disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 45, all limitation of Claim 44 (from which this Claim depends).
Levin et al. and Higa et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 45, a print head being connected to the ink circuit via a flexible umbilical cable, said cable containing a hydraulic connection to bring ink from the ink circuit to the print head and send ink to be recovered from the print head towards said ink circuit, and an electrical connection.
Michallon discloses the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 45, a print head being connected to the ink circuit via a flexible umbilical cable, said cable containing a hydraulic connection to bring ink from the ink circuit to the print head and send ink to be recovered from the print head towards said ink circuit, and an electrical connection (§0152). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the flexible umbilical cable of Michallon to the printer of Levin et al. to integrate all necessary connections to the print head in a structure suitable for installing the head where necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 12/17/25, with respect to rejection(s) of Claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. §112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of Claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. §112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 with respect to prior art-based rejection(s) of Claims 31-45 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see rejections above (based on prior art of record but different channels corresponding to the “ducts” of the instant application).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46-50 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for allowance of claims 46-50 is the inclusion of the limitations of a process including each duct having at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid outlet, and the forming of at least one fluid connection area comprising at least one of said at least one fluid inlet and at least one fluid outlet, wherein the fluid component is additively manufactured by depositing successive layers of said chemically resistant material, each having a thickness of between 5 mm and 300 mm, so that at least part of said at least one fluid connection area has a roughness of less than 5 mm and at least part of an inner surface of at least one duct has a roughness of less than 10 mm. It is these limitations found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
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 ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV whose telephone number is (571)270-7049. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Douglas X Rodrigues can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853