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 .
The amendment filed March 27, 2026 has been entered.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neese (US 2005/0151801) in view of Doll (US 2015/0075383).
Claim 1: Neese discloses a system for delivering liquid material to a nozzle array of a printing system (abstract; claim 1). The system includes a cartridge (40) having a cartridge outlet (90) and containing the liquid material (figs. 3-5, 15; ¶¶ 42-44), and a vented sub-tank (42) having a sub-tank inlet (air gap 126 is open to atmosphere through air barb 60) configured to receive the cartridge outlet to allow the liquid material to flow through the cartridge outlet by gravity (¶¶ 56-58), two inlet ports within the sub-tank inlet at different heights relative to a liquid level in the sub-tank (ink inlet via needle 50 into shroud 48 and air inlet via needle 46 into shroud 44 terminating at different vertical positions inside the sub-tank; fig. 15), and a sub-tank outlet sealingly connectable to the nozzle array by a pipe and having an outlet port below the inlet ports (ink exit port 58 which connects via tubing to the nozzle array; ¶ 58; fig. 15).
Neese is silent as to the sub-tank including a neck below both the inlet ports, and a horizontal cross-sectional area of a cavity of the sub-tank is smaller at the neck than in regions immediately below and immediately above the neck. However, Doll discloses a liquid reservoir having lower chamber 18, upper chamber 20, and narrower neck section 22 connecting the upper and lower chambers (¶ 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have formed Neese’s ink reservoir 42 with Doll’s wider upper and lower cavity regions joined by a narrowed neck, positioning the neck below the reservoir-side openings of needles 46 and 50 and above ink-exit barb 58. Neese expressly identifies foaming and bubble formation as problems associated with inkjet inks and ink delivery (¶¶ 49-54). Doll teaches that its narrowed neck forms a separation boundary or baffle and improves the separation of aerated liquid from less-aerated liquid (¶¶ 41-42). Positioning the neck between Neese’s upper inlet region and lower outlet region would predictably help retain air and aerated ink in the upper region while permitting ink from the lower region to be withdrawn through outlet 58 for delivery to the printhead.
Claims 3-4: Neese discloses that each outlet channel on the cartridge 40 is closed by a self-sealing valve for opening upon engagement between the sub-tank inlet and the cartridge outlet (¶¶ 46, 56; conduit needles 46, 50 serve as valve actuating members by piercing the cartridge’s septum valves and opening fluid flow).
Claim 7: Neese discloses maintaining the printhead and manifold at a higher elevation than the ink level/outlet of the sub-tank to create a negative pressure at the nozzles (¶ 58).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neese (US 2005/0151801) in view of Doll (US 2015/0075383), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tow (US 2021/0291537).
Claim 2: Neese is silent as to a filter. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tow discloses a system for delivering liquid material to a nozzle array of a printing system (abstract), which includes an integrated filter 112 positioned over the ink outlet port for filtering ink delivered to the printhead (¶ 45). As taught by Tow, including a filter minimizes ingress of air bubbles and particulates (¶ 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included the filter of Tow in the system of Neese to minimize ingress of air bubbles and particulates.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neese (US 2005/0151801) in view of Doll (US 2015/0075383), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mothe (US 2020/0189762)
Claim 5: Modified Neese is silent as to an additional neck above at least one of the inlet ports. However, Mothe discloses reservoir body 106 containing supply chamber 110, sensing chamber 112, and reserve chamber 114 arranged along fill axis 108 (¶ 37; figs. 2-4). First neck 116 is positioned between supply chamber 110 and sensing chamber 112, while second neck 118 is positioned between sensing chamber 112 and reserve chamber 114 (¶ 37; figs. 2-4). First neck 116 has a volume smaller than both adjoining supply chamber 110 and sensing chamber 112 (¶ 39). Sensing chamber 112 is positioned between first neck 116 and second neck 118 (¶ 40). Mothe teaches the gravity direction as extending downward from first neck 116 toward second neck 118 (¶ 41). Second neck 118 is positioned between sensing chamber 112 and reserve chamber 114 and has a relatively narrow flow area that limits liquid sloshing (¶¶ 42-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have configured the modified sub-tank of Neese with Mothe’s vertically ordered two-neck reservoir profile while retaining Neese’s two level-responsive inlet openings in the intermediate chamber between the necks to limit sloshing and improve the reliability of liquid-level determinations, as taught by Mothe (¶¶ 43, 47).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neese (US 2005/0151801) in view of Doll (US 2015/0075383), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Katoh (US 2018/0339519).
Claim 6: Neese discloses that the sub-tank’s outlet connects to the nozzle array through a fluid connection (fig. 24; ¶ 71), but is silent as to a pressure sensor. However, Katoh discloses liquid-circulation apparatus 200 having first manifold 230 and liquid-ejection heads 100 communicating with the manifold (¶ 58). Pressure sensor 233 is provided on first manifold 230 (¶ 67). Katoh teaches that the sensor measures pressure in the manifold and that the measured pressure is used to obtain a target delivery pressure (¶¶ 82-83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have included the pressure sensor of Katoh on the manifold of Neese in order to detect as control pressure, as taught by Katoh.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights