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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 4-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara (US 2022/0040990 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hara teaches a fluid delivery system for a printer comprising: a fluid reservoir (fig. 3; tank 32; ¶[0020]-[0021]); an input pump fluidly coupled to the fluid reservoir which is configured to pump fluid from the fluid reservoir to a print head for depositing the fluid onto a printing substrate (figs. 1, 3; liquid discharge head 20, first circulation pump 33; ¶[0015], [0020], [0022], [0027]); an output pump that is fluidly coupled to the print head which is configured to pump the fluid from the print head back to the fluid reservoir (fig. 3; second circulation pump 36; ¶[0020], [0023], [0040]); one or more sensors which are configured to measure one or more parameters of the fluid which is pumped to the print head, wherein the one or more parameters include a meniscus pressure within the print head (fig. 3; pressure sensors 39a-b; ¶[0022]-[0023], [0044], [0049], [0071]); and a controller communicatively coupled to at least the input pump which is configured to alter one or more characteristics of the input pump to alter one or more parameters of the fluid delivered to the print head (fig. 3; control unit 13; ¶[0027], [0045]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1. Hara further teaches the fluid delivery system wherein the one or more sensors are located downstream of the input pump and upstream of the print head (fig. 3; temperature sensors 26a-b, pressure sensors 39a-b; ¶[0019], [0022], [0047], [0049], [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters of the fluid which the one or more sensors are configured to measure further comprise one or more of pressure, temperature, or viscosity (fig. 3; ink temperature sensors 26a-b; ¶[0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1, further comprising a heating assembly which is configured to heat the fluid received from the input pump which is delivered to the print head (fig. 3; heater 34; ¶[0020], [0028], [0047], [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the input pump and the output pump are each independently controllable (fig. 3; control unit 13, first circulation pump 33, second circulation pump 36; ¶[0027], [0045]-[0053], [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1, wherein the one or more characteristics of the input pump which the controller is configured to alter include flow rate or pressure (fig. 3; pressure sensors 39a-b; ¶[0027], [0047]-[0049], [0056], [0071]).
Regarding claim 9, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1. Hara further teaches the controller is configured to alter the predetermined volume of fluid pumped to the print head based on the measurements of the one or more sensors (fig. 3; first pressure sensor 39a; ¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 9. Hara further teaches the controller is configured to alter the predetermined volume of fluid pumped to the print head based on a pressure of the fluid (fig. 3; first pressure sensor 39a; ¶[0049]).
Regarding claim 13, Hara teaches a printer comprising the fluid delivery system as recited in claim 1 (figs. 1,3; inkjet recording apparatus 1; ¶[0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Hara teaches a method of printing comprising: pumping fluid from a fluid reservoir to a print head for depositing the fluid onto a printing substrate (fig. 3; liquid discharge head 20, tank 32, first circulation pump 33; ¶[0020]-[0022], [0027]); printing on the printing substrate; pumping the fluid from the print head back to the fluid reservoir (fig. 3; second circulation pump 36; ¶[0020], [0023], [0040]); measuring, by one or more sensors, one or more parameters of the fluid which is pumped from the fluid reservoir to the print head (fig. 3; pressure sensors 39a-b; ¶[0022]-[0023], [0044], [0049], [0071]); and altering one or more characteristics of an input pump by a controller to alter one or more parameters of the fluid delivered to the print head (fig. 3; control unit 13; ¶[0027], [0045]-[0053]), wherein altering the one or more characteristics of the input pump is based upon one or more of the parameters, and wherein the parameters include at least a meniscus pressure within the print head ([0044], [0049], [0071]).
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.
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 2, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 2022/0040990 A1) in view of Akuzawa et al. (US 6213601 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1, but fails to teach or fairly suggest the input pump is configured to pump a predetermined volume of fluid from the fluid reservoir to the print head.
However, Akuzawa teaches an ink delivery system comprising input and output pumps wherein the input pump is configured to pump a predetermined volume of fluid from the fluid reservoir to the print head (figs. 3, 4; ink supply pump 42; col. 4, line 56 to col. 5, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the input pump of Akuzawa into the fluid delivery system of Hara in order to provide a pump configured to supply constant liquid flow in order to provide a stable printhead pressure.
Regarding claim 11, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1, but fails to teach or fairly suggest the input pump and output pump comprise peristaltic pumps.
However, Akuzawa teaches an ink delivery system comprising input and output pumps wherein the input and output pump comprise peristaltic pumps (figs. 3-4; ink supply pump 42, ink return pump 48; col. 4, line 56 to col. 5, line 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the peristaltic pumps of Akuzawa into the fluid delivery system of Hara in order to provide pumps configured to supply constant liquid flow in order to provide stable printhead pressure.
Regarding claim 12, Hara teaches the fluid delivery system of claim 1, but fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the output pump is fluidly coupled to a plurality of print heads; and/or wherein the fluid reservoir is fluidly coupled to one or more other fluid supplies; and/or wherein the output pump is configured to maintain a constant flow rate in the fluid delivery system.
However, Akuzawa teaches an ink delivery system wherein the output pump is fluidly coupled to a plurality of print heads; and/or wherein the fluid reservoir is fluidly coupled to one or more other fluid supplies; and/or wherein the output pump is configured to maintain a constant flow rate in the fluid delivery system (fig. 3; nozzle units 20A-D, return pump 48; col. 3, lines 23-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the printhead assembly of Akuzawa into the fluid delivery system of Hara in order to provide a line-type printing apparatus for printing across the width of a substrate in a single ejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 1 to recite, "one or more sensors which are configured to measure one or more parameters of the fluid which is pumped to the print head, wherein the one or more parameters include a meniscus pressure within the print head.” Applicant argues that Hara fails to teach such a fluid delivery device, citing ¶[0071] of Hara as merely teaching that, “meniscus pressure can be maintained by choosing an appropriate value.”
However, Hara, in ¶[0071], teaches a controller (processor 13a) that receives pressure data detected from pressure sensors (pressure sensors 39a-b), and that calculates the meniscus pressure of ink at the nozzle holes (nozzle holes 21a) using this pressure data. Hara further teaches that the controller calculates drive voltages based on the calculated meniscus pressure which are then applied to the circulation pumps (circulation pumps 33, 36) to change the ink pressure in the nozzle holes to an appropriate value. This amounts to altering “the one or more parameters of the fluid delivered to the printhead,” where the parameter in question is the ink pressure in the nozzle holes, which is equivalent to the meniscus pressure. Thus, the teachings of Hara meet the recitations of the claim. The rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 35 102(a)(1) is maintained. Further rejections of claims 2, 4-14 are detailed above.
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 THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights