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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govyadinov et al. (US 2013/0155135 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, Govyadinov et al. teaches a printing fluid ejection assembly comprising (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 1, shown below): a first printing fluid channel comprising: an inlet to receive printing fluid, an outlet to output printing fluid (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 4, Reference #212, shown below), and a first printing fluid ejection element between the inlet and the outlet (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 4, Reference #216, shown below); a second printing fluid channel arranged with respect to the first printing fluid channel, the second printing fluid channel comprising an actuator in fluidic communication with the first printing fluid ejection element of the first printing fluid channel (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 4, Reference #208, #206, #210, #202, shown below); and a nozzle layer comprising a first nozzle arranged to correspond to the first printing fluid ejection element of the first printing fluid channel, wherein the actuator is arranged with respect to the first printing fluid ejection element such that, in response to reception of refresh signals, the actuator is to fire and refresh printing fluid [i.e. fluid pump] in a first nozzle meniscus region (Govyadinov et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 25-28 and Figures 2 & 4, Reference #116 & #216, shown below). The names of the elements and sections are slightly different, but apply to the elements as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
194
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
324
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As related to independent claim 8, Govyadinov et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach a method for refreshing printing fluid (Govyadinov et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 13-14 and Figure 1, shown above), the method comprising: receiving a refresh signal associated with a refreshing operation in a printing fluid ejection assembly comprising a first printing fluid channel, the first printing fluid channel comprising a printing fluid inlet, a printing fluid outlet (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 4, Reference #212, shown above), and a first printing fluid ejection element arranged to correspond to a first nozzle (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2 & 4, Reference #216 & #116, shown above); and in response to the refresh signal, refreshing printing fluid with a non-ejecting impulse generated (Govyadinov et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 13-14) by an actuator [i.e. fluid pump] positioned in a second printing fluid channel in fluidic communication with the first printing fluid ejection element of the first printing fluid channel (Govyadinov et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 25-28 and Figures 2 & 4, Reference #206, #116 & #216, shown above), wherein the non-ejecting impulse refreshes the printing fluid at a first meniscus region associated with the first nozzle (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 4, Reference #208, #210, #212, & #116 shown above).
As related to independent claim 11, Govyadinov et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach a printing fluid ejection assembly (Govyadinov et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 13-14 and Figure 1, shown above) comprising : a substrate layer comprising a printing fluid inlet and a printing fluid outlet (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2 & 4, Reference #212, shown above); a printing fluid chamber layer comprising: a first channel to fluidly connect the printing fluid inlet to the printing fluid outlet, the first channel comprising a printing fluid ejection element, and a second channel in fluidic communication with the printing fluid ejection element (Govyadinov et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 25-28 and Figures 2 & 4, Reference #116 & #216, shown above), the second channel comprising an actuator at a distance with respect to the printing fluid ejection element (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2 & 4, Reference #208, #206, #210, #202, shown above); and a nozzle layer comprising a nozzle arranged to correspond to the printing fluid ejection element, wherein the printing fluid chamber layer is arranged between the substrate layer and the nozzle layer, wherein the actuator is to generate a pressure pulse to refresh the printing fluid located at a meniscus region associated with the nozzle (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2 & 4, Reference #116, #216, #208, #206, #210, & #202 shown above).
As related to dependent claim 2, Govyadinov et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the actuator is in fluidic communication with the first printing fluid ejection element via at least one of an inlet region associated with the inlet and an outlet region associated with the outlet (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2 & 4, Reference #206, #216, #208, #210, #212, & #202 shown above).
As related to dependent claim 12, Govyadinov et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first channel and the second channel are fluidly connected via an inlet region associated with the inlet and an outlet region associated with the outlet (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2 & 4, Reference #208, #210, #212, & #202 shown above).
As related to dependent claim 5, Govyadinov et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the nozzle layer further comprises a second nozzle arranged to correspond to a second printing fluid ejection element (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2 & 5, Reference #116 & #216), the assembly further comprising: a third printing fluid channel arranged with respect to the first printing fluid channel and the second printing fluid channel (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 3 & 5, Reference #208, #210, #212, & #202 shown below), the third printing fluid channel comprising the second printing fluid ejection element in fluidic communication with the actuator (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 2, 3, & 5, Reference #206 & #216 shown below), wherein the actuator is arranged with respect to the second printing fluid ejection element such that, in response to reception of refresh signals, the actuator is to fire and refresh printing fluid in a second nozzle meniscus region and the first nozzle meniscus region (Govyadinov et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 13-14 and Figures 2, 3, & 5, Reference #206, #216, & #116, shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
204
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
360
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govyadinov et al. (US 2013/0155135 A1) in view of Govyadinov et al. ‘499 (US 2018/0229499 A1).
As related to dependent claim 3, Govyadinov et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the actuator is arranged at a distance with respect to the first printing fluid ejection element (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 4, Reference #206 & #216, shown above), but does not specifically teach the distance based on a printing fluid ejection assembly lumped parameter associated with the geometries… However, Govyadinov et al. ‘499 teaches a printing fluid ejection assembly (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Figure 1, shown below) and specifically teaches the distance based on a printing fluid ejection assembly lumped parameter associated with the geometries of the first printing fluid channel and the second printing fluid channel (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51 and Figure 2B, shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
318
348
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
406
334
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the dimensions of Govyadinov et al. with those of Govyadinov et al. ‘499 in an effort to provide an assembly that reduces ink blockage and/or clogging in the inkjet print system (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-9).
As related to further dependent claim 4, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains as applied above and continues to teach the distance between the actuator and the first printing fluid ejection element is within a range of distances associated with a printing fluid ejection assembly lumped parameter range from 0.0001 µm⁻³ to 0.003 µm⁻³ (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51 and Figure 2B, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the actuator in fluidic communication with the first printing fluid ejection element and the second printing fluid ejection element via an inlet region, an outlet region and a series of parallel channels, wherein the actuator is arranged with respect to each of the first printing fluid ejection element and the second printing fluid ejection element based on geometries of the series of fluid paths (Govyadinov et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 13-14 and Figures 2, 3, & 5, Reference #206, #216, & #116, shown above and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51 and Figure 2B, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 7, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains as applied above and continues to teach the first printing fluid path is in fluidic with the third printing fluid path via the inlet region and the outlet region and the second printing fluid path is in fluidic communication with the first printing fluid path and the second printing fluid path via the series of parallel channels (Govyadinov et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 13-14 and Figures 2, 3, & 5, Reference #208, #210, #212, & #202, shown above and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51 and Figure 2B, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the method further comprising: calculating an ejection idle time associated with the fluid ejection element; and upon the ejection idle time exceeds a threshold idle time, performing a subsequent refreshing operation with the actuator (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51 and Page 4, Paragraph 62).
As related to dependent claim 10, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach determining the non-ejecting impulse generated by the actuator is based on a first printing fluid channel geometry, a second printing fluid channel geometry, and a series of fluid paths from the actuator to the printing fluid ejection element (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51; Page 4, Paragraph 62; and Figure 2B, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 13, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the distance between the actuator and the printing fluid ejection element is within a range of distances based on geometries of fluid paths from the actuator to the printing fluid ejection element (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51 and Figure 2B, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 14, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains as applied above and continues to teach a cross-sectional area of the second channel is lower than a cross-sectional area of the first channel (Govyadinov et al. – Figure 5, Reference #208, #206, & #212, #216 shown above and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Figure 2B, Reference #CLW & #ChW, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 15, the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 remains as applied above and continues to teach the range of distances is associated with a printing fluid ejection assembly lumped parameter range from 0.0001 µm⁻³ to 0.003 µm⁻³ and an actuator ratio within a range from 20 000 µm⁵ to 800 000 µm⁵ (Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Page 2, Paragraph 29 – Page 3, Paragraph 51 and Figure 2B, shown above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “claim 1 recites… the actuator is arranged… in response to reception of refresh signals… to fire and refresh printing fluid.” (emphasis in original). Examiner previously discussed and reiterated above the claimed structural limitations are to “a printing fluid ejection assembly comprising: a first printing fluid channel… a second printing fluid channel…; and a nozzle layer…”, which Govyadinov et al. teaches as indicated above.
Applicant argued that “claim 8… claim 11 similarly recites ‘wherein the actuator is to generate a pressure pulse to refresh (emphasis in original) the printing fluid located at a meniscus region associated with the nozzle.’… Govyadinov teaches a fundamentally different purpose (emphasis in original) … ‘to provide an energy boost to the fluid drop being ejected from the printhead nozzle.’” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated previously and reiterated above, Govyadinov et al. teaches micro-recirculation without firing [i.e. without ejecting] (Govyadinov et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 13).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the actuator refreshes the printing fluid in the nozzle meniscus region while not ejecting printing fluid droplets through the nozzle” and “the refreshing operation is performed while the printing fluid ejection member of the printing fluid ejection assembly is idle”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argued that “claim 8, which explicitly recites “refreshing printing fluid with a non-ejecting impulse generated by an actuator” (emphasis original) “to the contrary, Govyadinov’s pump element … providing an ‘energy boost to the fluid drop being ejected.’” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim teaches a “non-ejecting impulse.” As conceded by the Applicant, “Govyadinov’s pump element …” provides an “energy boost to the fluid drop being ejected.” The energy boost of Govyadinov et al. is the “non-ejecting impulse” as the ejecting function is being performed by the drop ejecting element #204 of Govyadinov et al.. Meanwhile, as indicated previously and reiterated above, Govyadinov et al. teaches micro-recirculation without firing [i.e. without ejecting].
Applicant argued that “Regarding claims 4 and 15, the Examiner has alleged that Govyadinov ‘499 teaches the claimed lumped parameter range and an actuator ratio range… respectfully submits that Govyadinov ‘499 does not…” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The lumped parameter range and actuator ratio as claimed, rely on a variety of variables with open-ended ranges as indicated in the specification, but not specifically claimed. As indicated previously and reiterated above, Govyadinov et al. teaches a range of distances between the actuator and the first printing fluid ejection element which is the variable that is specifically claimed. The range of distances of Govyadinov et al. when combined with well-known ranges of variables required to determine a functioning lumped parameter range and furthermore the actuator ratio which relies on the broadly defined and open-ended range of variables is within a range of distances as claimed. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific ranges of the remainder of variables used to limit the lumped parameter range and therefore the actuator ratio) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argued regarding claim 9 that the “cited references… do not teach monitoring an ejection idle time. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated previously and reiterated above, Govyadinov et al. ‘499 specifically teaches designing and providing elements and channels to improve decap time [i.e. ejection idle time]. The purpose of the circulation system of Govyadinov et al. ‘499 is to improve nozzle health and decap time, implementation of the “energy boost” of the recirculation of Govyadinov et al. is also to improve decap time. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the concept of monitoring ejection idle time in order to perform the functions of the combination of Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 in an effort to improve decap time.
Finally, Applicant argued “regarding claims 6-7… Govyadinov shows recirculation channels that are U-shaped… not a series of parallel channels as claimed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated previously and reiterated above both Govyadinov et al. and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 show a series of parallel channels [i.e. the legs of the “U-shaped channels” are parallel and the parallel channels are repeated in both directions] (Govyadinov et al. – Figures 4 & 5 and Govyadinov et al. ‘499 – Figure 4).
With respect to the additional dependent claims, no further arguments were presented and therefore the rejection stands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NISHIKAWA (US 2011/0316934 A1) teaches a droplet ejection head during the design of which an equivalent circuit analysis of the lumped parameter system is carried out in n an effort to find the appropriate relationships and ranges of the appliable variables.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 EST.
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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights