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 Group I, Apparatus species A (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
Reference character 112 in Fig. 1
Reference character 412 in Fig .4
Reference character 416 in Fig. 4
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0038] line 13, the phrase “A tangent line 340 indicating the blade tip and a perpendicular 340 line to the tangent line 342 are also shown” (emphasis added) should likely read “A tangent line 340 indicating the blade tip and a perpendicular line 342 to the tangent line 340 are also shown,” (emphasis added) to be clearer and more consistent with what is shown in Fig. 3.
In paragraph [0040] line 8, “Also shown are an x-pivot range 420 a range of travel in”, should refer to 412 because reference numeral 420 has been previously defined as the angular pivot range (not the x pivot range) and reference numeral 412 appears to be indicating the x-pivot range in Fig. 4.
In paragraph [0040] line 9, “a range of travel for the blade holder 402 in the positive y-direction 406”, 406 should instead be 416 because reference numeral 406 has been previously defined as the blade (not the positive y-direction) and reference numeral 416 appears to be indicating the positive y-direction in Fig. 4.
In paragraph [0040] line 20, the sentence “A tangent line 340 indicating the blade tip and a perpendicular 340 line to the tangent line 342 are also shown.” is confusing because these elements are not labeled in Fig. 4. One possible solution to this issue would be to delete the reference numerals from this sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “printhead contamination prevention device is located between a primer dispensing system and at least one ink jetting printhead” is unclear because the claim is drawn to the printhead contamination prevention device per se. However, the recitation of this device being located between other structures that have not been positively recited makes the scope of the claims unclear, particularly as to whether the claim is intended to be a combination claim positively reciting the primer dispensing system and at least one ink jetting printhead. As the scope of the claim is unclear, it is indefinite. For the sake of furthering prosecution, since the claims are being drawn to the printhead contamination prevention device per se, the language of claim 4 with respect to the device’s location between other structures is being interpreted as a functional intended use recitation and not given any patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “about 15 degrees to about 35 degrees” is unclear as it is unknown what exactly is meant by “about.” Is 14 degrees about 15 degrees or is 10 degrees about 15 degrees? As such the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “about .1mm to about .75mm” is unclear as it is unknown what is exactly meant by “about.” Is .76mm about .75mm or is 1mm about .75mm? As such the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “about 5% wt to about 40% wt of a salt” is unclear as it is unknown what is exactly meant by “about”. Is 4% wt about 5% wt or is 1% wt about 5% wt? As such the claim is rendered indefinite.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required
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.
(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, 2, and 4-9 each of are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reith et al. (US 20160069028 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reith et al. teaches a device including mounting fixture (Fig. 1 element 7), and a blade attached to the mounting fixture (Fig. 1 element 4 and paragraph [0039]), and wherein an angle of the mounting fixture and a position of the blade create a gap between a tip of the blade and a printing media (paragraph [0022]). With respect to the preamble recitation of “ A printhead contamination device,” it is noted that the body of the claim fails to breathe any life and meaning into the preamble to add any structural limitation to the claim and therefore this language is considered a functional intended use recitation. Since Reith et al. teaches all the structure as recited, it is capable of functioning as a printhead contamination preventing device and thereby meets the claim language.
Regarding claim 2, Reith et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and the mounting fixture is rotatable to multiple angles about a central axis (paragraph [0040]) and the blade is movable (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claims 4-5, to the extent these claims are clear in scope, note these claims recite additional limitations with respect to the details of the position of the printhead contamination prevention device relative to the primer dispensing system and ink jetting printhead. However, it is noted that the primer dispensing system and ink jetting printhead are not positively required elements of the device and have been afforded no patentable weight. Since Reith et al recites all the elements of claim 1 as stated above, Reith et al. is capable of being located between any desired structure, such as a primer dispensing system (Fig. 1 element 5) and at least one ink jetting printhead (paragraphs [0053] and [0054]), wherein the primer dispensing device further comprises a printhead.
Regarding claim 6, note these claims recite additional limitations with respect to the angle of the blade relative to the media. However, it is noted that the print media is not a positively required element of the device. Since Reith et al. recites all the elements of claim 2 as stated above, and the blade is able to rotate (paragraph [0040]) it is capable of having an angle of the blade relative to the printing media is rotatable from about 15 degrees to about 35 degrees. Furthermore, Reith et al. teaches angles of the blade that fall within the claimed range (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, note these claims recite additional limitations with respect to the gap between the blade and media. However, it is noted that the print media is not a positively required element of the device. Since Reith et al. recites all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and has a gap between it and the media (paragraph [0022]), it is capable of having a gap from .1mm to .075mm.
Regarding claim 8, note this claim recites additional limitations with respect to the details of the primer composition. However, it is noted that the primer is not positively required element of the device. Since Reith et al. recites all the claimed structure of the apparatus, Reith is capable of dispensing a primer with a 5% wt to 40% wt of a salt in an aqueous solution based on a total weight of the aqueous solution and thereby meets the claim language.
Regarding claim 9, note this claim recites additional limitations with respect to the details of the printing medium. However, it is noted that the printing medium is not positively required element of the device. Since Reith et al. recites all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and it is capable of printing on paper (Fig. 2 element 1 and paragraph [0031]) and thereby meets the claim language.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reith et al. (US 20160069028 A1) in view of Ahl et al. (US 6330418 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Reith et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but it fails to teach at least a portion of an edge of the blade is non-continuous. Alh et al. does teach at least a portion of an edge of the blade is non-continuous (Fig. 1A element 32 and Col. 4 lines 50-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use a noncontinuous blade as taught by Ahl et al. to “to allow adjustment to accommodate different sized paper” (Col. 4 lines 51-52).
Claim is 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reith et al. (US 20160069028 A1) in view of Tomita et al. (US 6062139 A).
Regarding claim 10, Reith et al teaches all the elements of claim 2 as stated above but it fails to teach the blade is configured for linear translation along a side of the mounting fixture. Tomita et al. teaches it is well known in the art to have a printing device including a blade (Fig. 1 element 5) configured for linear translation along a side of a mounting fixture (Fig. 1 element 3 and Col. 5 lines 5-20). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to allow the blade of Reith et al. to linear translate along the side of the mounting fixture as taught by Tomita et al.) to better control the distance the blade is from the printing medium to allow it to better control the amount of primer fluid on the printing media.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raoust (US 9676196 B1), Thayer (US 20130064589 A1), Crabtree (US-20030099777-A1), Tsuchiya et al. (US 20110234662 A1) and Sumii et al. (US 20230226837 A1) are cited as having a structure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853