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 Species B, claims 1-7 and 11-15 in the reply filed on 05 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 January 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 March 2024, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 22 March 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchanan et al. (US 7,273,275).
With respect to claim 1, Buchanan discloses a print head comprising:
a filter (Fig. 3, element 26) disposed between an ink reservoir (Fig. 1, element 14) and a standpipe (Fig. 3, element 27), the filter being configured to filter out an unwanted substance before ink from the ink reservoir enters the standpipe (Column 4, lines 17-27); and
the standpipe (Fig. 3, element 27) configured to receive ink from the ink reservoir through the filter (Column 4, lines 36-46);
wherein the standpipe comprises an object (Fig. 3, elements 23, 31) disposed therein configured to impede gas bubble growth to facilitate flow of the received ink incident on the object (Column 7, lines 3-10) through one or more passages (Fig. 3, element 18) in the object.
The examiner notes to applicant that “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”, see MPEP 2114. Thus, the limitations concerning the standpipe and object would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Buchanan as applied above.
With respect to claim 2, Buchanan discloses the filter (Fig. 3, element 26) corresponds to a mesh filter (Column 4, line 24).
With respect to claim 3, Buchanan discloses the object (Fig. 3, elements 23, 31) is deformable (Fig. 3, elements 23, 31, i.e. intrinsic property of the material selected).
With respect to claim 11, Buchanan discloses the standpipe (Fig. 3, element 27) is attached to an aperture (Fig. 3, element 13), which is configured to receive the ink (Column 3, lines 11-22, i.e. flow features) that has flowed through the object (Fig. 3, elements 23, 31), and further wherein the aperture is configured to facilitate flow of the received ink to a microfluidic device (Column 3, lines 11-22, i.e. transducers) externally attached to the print head (Fig. 1, element 10).
With respect to claim 12, Buchanan discloses the microfluidic device (Column 3, lines 11-22, i.e. transducers) comprises one or more ejection nozzles (Fig. 3, element 15) to eject one or more ink droplets (Column 11, lines 23-39) when the microfluidic device (Column 3, lines 11-22, i.e. transducers) is electrically activated through one or more electrical contact pads (Column 11, lines 23-39, i.e. electrical communication).
With respect to claim 15, Buchanan discloses a standpipe (Fig. 3, element 27) for a print head (Fig. 1, element 10), the standpipe configured to receive ink (Column 4, lines 36-46) through a filter (Fig. 3, element 26) disposed between an ink reservoir (Fig. 1, element 14) and the standpipe and characterized by comprising an object (Fig. 3, elements 23, 31) disposed therein configured to impede gas bubble growth in such a manner that an inflow of the received ink (Column 7, lines 3-10) incident on the object flows through one or more passages (Fig. 3, element 18) in the object.
The examiner notes to applicant that “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”, see MPEP 2114. Thus, the limitations concerning the standpipe and object would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Buchanan as applied above.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 4 is 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. The primary reasons for allowance for claim 4 is that applicant’s claimed invention includes a print head having an object, where the object has a mesh structure and further where the mesh structure has a cylindrical or a conical shape. It is this limitation, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
2. Claims 5-7, 13, and 14 are objected to for being dependent upon claim 4.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 PM.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 02/24/2026