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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of EP Application No. EP21215072.6 was received on 13 June 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 June 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 13 June 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fima et al. (US 9,878,549 B1), hereinafter Fima.
With regard to Claim 1, Fima discloses a material removal unit for a printhead (Fig. 5; printhead 500, Fig. 1), the unit comprising:
a pass-through opening (orifice plate 502, Col. 1, Lines 23-45; also parallel channels 126 and defined by o-ring opening 120, Col. 6, Lines 50-60; Fig. 5; Cols. 5-7) provided under an ejection opening (nozzle outlet 27) of the printhead (500) and configured such that an ejected droplet can pass through the pass-through opening essentially without being affected (Col. 6);
at least one conduit forming channel configured to form a conduit (Col. 6, Lines 10-40; anterior groove 130 and anterior suction duct 106; Fig. 5);
wherein the conduit is communicatively connecting an area surrounding the ejection opening with a connection point configured to remove excess material from the area surrounding the ejection opening (Cols. 5-7; Fig. 5; Col. 6, Line 58-65);
wherein the conduit has at least one conduit opening close to the pass-through opening and is configured to transport the material to the connection point (Cols. 5-7; Fig. 5; Col. 6, Line 58-65).
With regard to Claim 2, Fima further discloses wherein the conduit is configured to be connected to a suction device at the connection point (Figs. 3-5; Col. 6, Line 58 to Col. 7, Line 11, vacuum source connected to anterior drain 110); configured to remove the excess material from the area surrounding the ejection opening (Cols. 6-7); and configured to transport the material in the conduit through a dragging force (Cols. 6-7; purged ink fluid is forced past a narrow or restricted channel with “venturi effect” and suctioned through a vacuum force); or wherein a pressure gradient is formed in the conduit when the suction device is connected to the connection point (Cols. 6-7; purged ink fluid is forced past a narrow or restricted channel with “venturi effect” and suctioned through a vacuum force).
With regard to Claim 3, Fima further discloses wherein the conduit is configured to be connected to a suction device at the connection point (Figs. 3-5; Col. 6, Line 58 to Col. 7, Line 11, vacuum source connected to anterior drain 110); configured to remove the excess material from the area surrounding the ejection opening (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26); and configured to transport the material in the conduit through a dragging force (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26); and wherein a pressure gradient is formed in the conduit when the suction device is connected to the connection point (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26).
With regard to Claim 4, Fima further discloses wherein the diameter of the pass-through opening is at least essentially equal to a diameter of the corresponding ejection opening of the printhead (Col. 1, Lines 31-34).
With regard to Claim 5, Fima further discloses wherein the diameter of the pass-through opening is at least essentially equal or greater that a diameter of the corresponding ejection opening of the printhead (Col. 1, Lines 31-34), and wherein the ejection opening is located essentially in the center of the pass- through opening (Col. 1, Lines 31-34).
With regard to Claim 6, Fima further discloses wherein the conduit is configured to transport the excess material to a material reservoir (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26; Fig. 5); or wherein a material reservoir is in communication with the printhead in order to recycle the material in the material reservoir (Fig. 10; Col. 16, Lines 1-5).
With regard to Claim 7, Fima further discloses wherein the conduit is configured to transport the excess material to a material reservoir (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26; Fig. 5); and wherein a material reservoir is in communication with the printhead in order to recycle the material in the material reservoir (Fig. 10; Col. 16, Lines 1-5).
With regard to Claim 9, Fima further discloses wherein an anti-stiction coating is provided in the conduit and/or the area surrounding the ejection opening (Col. 9, Lines 5-26).
With regard to Claim 10, Fima further discloses wherein the anti-stiction coating is a complete or a micro-structured partial anti- stiction coating (Col. 9, Lines 5-26).
With regard to Claim 15, Fima discloses a material removal method for a printhead, the method comprising: providing a material removal unit according to claim 1; communicatively connecting, with a conduit, an area surrounding the ejection opening with a connection point configured to remove excess material from the area surrounding the ejection opening (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26); and transporting the excess material to the connection point based on at least one transport method (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26; suction); wherein the conduit has at least one conduit opening close to the pass-through opening (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26; see Figs. 3-5, 10).
With regard to Claim 16, Fima further discloses wherein the transport method is based on a pressure gradient in the conduit (Col. 6, Line 40 to Col. 7, Line 26; suction); or based on a ratchet conveyor in the conduit and/or a nozzle well.
With regard to Claim 18, Fima further discloses wherein the diameter of the pass- through opening is greater than a diameter of the corresponding ejection opening of the printhead (Figs. 3-5; diameter of 0-ring canal greater than diameter of each nozzle opening).
With regard to Claim 19, Fima further discloses wherein the ejection opening is located essentially in the center of the pass-through opening (Col. 1, Lines 31-34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fima, in view of Krichtman et al. (US PGPub 2013/0141491 A1), hereinafter Krichtman.
With regard to Claim 8, Fima further discloses wherein a nozzle well is formed in the area surrounding the ejection opening (Fig. 3, plurality of channels 126 surrounds ejection openings of the head); however Fima does not explicitly disclose wherein the nozzle well is configured to allow a path for material in excess of a predetermined size threshold to be guided to the conduit opening.
The secondary reference of Krichtman discloses wherein the nozzle well is configured to allow a path for material in excess of a predetermined size threshold to be guided to the conduit opening (Figs. 5, 14; ¶0105-0107; ¶0087-0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the nozzle well of Krichtman, with the material removal unit of Fima, in order to remove excess vapor while leaving sufficient vapor in the proximity of the nozzle plate to ensure that any ink on the surface does not dry out, yet without forming large droplets, as taught by Krichtman (¶0091).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fima, in view of Hibino et al. (US PGPub 2015/0273828 A1), hereinafter Hibino.
With regard to Claim 11, Fima further discloses wherein the anti-stiction coated area is configured to creating an anisotropic ratchet conveyor on the bottom and/or top of the conduit (Col. 9, Lines 5-26). Fima discloses the coated area, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the conduit is configured to support the ratchet conveyor by vibrations of the printhead; or wherein the anti-stiction coating is provided in the shape of curved rungs.
Examiner reminds applicant that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Fima teaches the coated area of the conduit, and the movement of the ink through the conduit. The vibrations of the printhead are not part of the structure.
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).
The secondary reference of Hibino discloses movement of drops on a repellent layer by the effect of vibrations (¶0008; 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vibrational movement of drops on coating from a printhead of Hibino, with the material removal unit of Fima, in order to have no moisture remains at the same position on the surface of the liquid repellent layer for a long time, as taught by Hibino (¶0008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 12 is that applicants claimed invention includes a material removal unit having wherein the anti-stiction coated area is configured to creating an anisotropic ratchet conveyor on the bottom and/or top of the conduit; wherein the conduit is configured to support the ratchet conveyor by vibrations of the printhead; and wherein the anti-stiction coating is provided in the shape of curved rungs. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 13 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 13 is that applicants claimed invention includes a material removal unit having wherein at least two areas with different surface energies are provided around the ejection opening in a half-rounded shape. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 14 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 14 is that applicants claimed invention includes a material removal unit having wherein additional openings are provided at junction points of the conduit forming channels; and wherein conduit shaping elements are provided in said openings in order to reshape of the conduits formed in the conduit forming element. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 17 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 17 is that applicants claimed invention includes a material removal unit having wherein the transport method is based on a pressure gradient in the conduit; and based on a ratchet conveyor in the conduit and/or a nozzle well. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853