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 Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 05/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/12/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/28/2024, 04/13/2026 and 05/12/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 10 states “wherein the total mass of fluid droplets dispensed is a function of a desired confidence level of a water concentration measurement as specified by a user and the accuracy and resolution of the analytical scale”. The original disclosure of the application has failed to indicate how the accuracy and resolution of the analytical scale is used in order to determine the total mass of fluid droplets. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how the accuracy and resolution of the analytical scale is used in order to determine the total mass of fluid droplets.
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.
Claims 8-11 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 8 states “activating a purging step wherein the droplets are dispensed from the one or more nozzles of the ejection head until a steady state condition of the droplets is realized”. The term “steady” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “steady” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “steady” is defined as showing little variation or fluctuation. It is unclear how much variation or fluctuation is permissible in order to establish that the droplets are dispensed in a “steady state”. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “activating a purging step wherein the droplets are dispensed from the one or more nozzles of the ejection head until a state of the droplets is realized”.
Claim 9 states “wherein the predetermined number of droplets dispensed per nozzle to determine an average velocity of the dispensed fluid droplets is a function of a desired confidence level of a water concentration measurement as specified by a user”. The term “desired confidence level” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired confidence level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of water concentration measurement is considered as a “desired confidence level”. The original disclosure of the instant application has not indicated any meets or bounds to establish what is to be considered a “desired confidence level” of a water concentration measurement. For examination purpose, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein the predetermined number of droplets dispensed per nozzle to determine an average velocity of the dispensed fluid droplets is a function of a level of a water concentration measurement as specified by a user”.
Claim 10 states “wherein the total mass of fluid droplets dispensed is a function of a desired confidence level of a water concentration measurement as specified by a user”. The term “desired confidence level” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired confidence level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of water concentration measurement is considered as a “desired confidence level”. The original disclosure of the instant application has not indicated any meets or bounds to establish what is to be considered a “desired confidence level” of a water concentration measurement. For examination purpose, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein the total mass of fluid droplets dispensed is a function of a level of a water concentration measurement as specified by a user”.
Claim 11 states “wherein the fluid ejection cartridge is disposed in a controlled, low humidity atmosphere prior to inserting the hygroscopic fluid into the fluid ejection cartridge”. The term “low” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what level of humidity is to be considered “low humidity”. The original disclosure of the instant application has not indicated any meets or bounds to establish what is to be considered “low humidity” in the atmosphere. For examination purpose, the Examiner will interpret the limitation in question as “wherein the fluid ejection cartridge is disposed in a controlled, humidity atmosphere prior to inserting the hygroscopic fluid into the fluid ejection cartridge”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, Dudenhoefer et al. (US 8,333,453; hereinafter “Dudenhoefer”; cited in the IDS filed on 03/28/2024) teaches a method for determining the water content (Figure 4) of a hygroscopic fluid (20; Figure 1; Column 1, Lines 46-65), comprising:
inserting an amount of hygroscopic fluid (20) into a fluid ejection cartridge (12; Figure 1; Column 1, Lines 35-55);
attaching the fluid ejection cartridge (12) to a fluid ejection device (10; Figure 1; Lines 35-36; Column 1, Line 66 – Column 2, Line 12);
activating the fluid ejection cartridge (12; Column 1, Line 66 – Column 2, Line 9) to dispense a predetermined number of fluid droplets (38) from one or more nozzles (18) of an ejection head (16) attached to the fluid ejection cartridge (12) onto a substrate (22; Figure 1; Column 1, Line 66 – Column 2, Line 9).
Long et al. (CN 111215160; hereinafter “Long”; English translation provided by the Examiner) teaches dispensing a predetermined number of fluid droplets ([0018-0020]) to determine a velocity of the dispensed fluid droplets ([0018-0020]).
In claim 1, the specific limitations of "using an information database in software of the fluid ejection device that correlates the water content of the hygroscopic fluid to an average mass per fluid droplet dispensed or the velocity of the fluid droplets dispensed to determine the water content of the hygroscopic fluid" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 2-7 are also allowed for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Dudenhoefer teaches a method for accurately dispensing (Column 1, Line 55 – Column 2, Line 9) a hygroscopic fluid (20; Figure 1; Column 1, Lines 46-65), comprising:
inserting an amount of hygroscopic fluid (20) into a fluid ejection cartridge (12; Figure 1; Column 1, Lines 35-55);
attaching the fluid ejection cartridge (12) to a fluid ejection device (10; Figure 1; Lines 35-36; Column 1, Line 66 – Column 2, Line 12);
activating the fluid ejection cartridge (12; Column 1, Line 66 – Column 2, Line 9) to dispense a predetermined number of fluid droplets (38) from one or more nozzles (18) of an ejection head (16) attached to the fluid ejection cartridge (12) onto a substrate (22; Figure 1; Column 1, Line 66 – Column 2, Line 9);
adjusting one or more firing parameters of the ejection head (Column 3, Lines 8-20).
Long teaches dispense a predetermined number of fluid droplets ([0018-0020]) to determine a velocity of the dispensed fluid droplets ([0018-0020]).
In claim 12, the specific limitations of " using an information database in software in the fluid ejection device that correlates the water content of the hygroscopic fluid to an average mass per fluid droplet dispensed or the velocity of the fluid droplets dispensed to determine a water content of the hygroscopic fluid; and adjusting one or more firing parameters of the ejection head based on the water content of the hygroscopic fluid" in combination with the remaining limitations as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claims 13-15 are also allowed for depending on claim 12.
Claims 8-11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY W MEGNA FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)272-6456. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-4PM.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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 W MEGNA FUENTES/ /DANIEL S LARKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights