DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/10/2026. Applicant traverses on the basis that the claims are not independent because the independent claims 1, 11 and 19 overlap in some of their recitations. While this may be true, it does not negate the fact that each of the inventions embodiment by the independent claims and their dependent claims do not completely overlap in scope. For instance, the invention according to claims 11-18 recites a diagnostic unit with a drop placement analyzer, a cleaner and a purge unit, none of which features are requires by the inventions according to claims 1-10 and according to claims 19 and 20. Likewise, the invention according to claims 19 and 20 recites a plenum and a conduit that routes gas from a printhead supply assembly enclosure to the plenum, a feature that is not required by the inventions according to claims 1-10 and 11-18. Thus, while it is understood that there is some overlapping language in the independent claims, the inventions on the whole have non-overlapping features which would require non-overlapping searches and result in a serious search burden.
The standing Requirement is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit” in all claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (2018/0326732).
Regarding claim 1, Ko teaches a printing system, comprising:
a print enclosure (fig. 5D, item 1000);
a printhead supply assembly enclosure (fig 5D, item 3700) coupled to the print enclosure (see fig. 5D);
an inkjet printer (fig. 5D, item 2505) disposed within the print enclosure, the inkjet printer comprising:
a massive base (fig. 5D, item 2100) and a flotation substrate support ([0048], fig. 3, item 2200) disposed on the base (see fig. 3);
a printhead assembly support (fig. 5D, portion of item 2130 on which item 2500 is shown in the figure) that extends across the flotation substrate support (see figs. 3, 5D); and
a printhead assembly (fig. 3, item 2310, 2501) coupled to the printhead assembly support (see figs. 3, 5D);
a printhead supply assembly (fig. 6A, assembly inside enclosure 3700) disposed within the printhead supply assembly enclosure and coupled to an auxiliary support (fig. 5D, portion of item 2130 on which item 3700 is shown in the figure), the auxiliary support substantially parallel to the printhead assembly support (see fig. 5D); and
a gas filtration and circulation unit disposed between, and in fluid communication with, the print enclosure and the printhead supply assembly enclosure to circulate gas within and between the print enclosure and the printhead supply assembly enclosure (see figs. 6A, 11, Note gas circulation and filtration loop 3130. Note that the gas filtration and circulation “unit” is being taken to be the space between the print enclosure 2500 and the printhead supply assembly enclosure 3700. Note that “unit” can mean almost anything. Note that the gas circulates in and around both the print enclosure and the supply assembly enclosure and is in fluid communication with all enclosures shown).
Regarding claim 2, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 1, wherein the flotation substrate support comprises a first section, a second section, and a third section, the second section is between the first section and the third section, and the printhead assembly support extends across the second section, and wherein the inkjet printer further comprising a substrate rotation assembly coupled to the third section of the flotation substrate support (see fig. 3, Note first 2201 and third 2203 end portions of support 2200 and middle, second portion 2202 of support 2200 over which printhead assembly support 2130 extends. Note that third section is being taken to be a “substrate rotation assembly.” Note that anything can be called a “substrate rotation assembly.” That is, no structure has been recited requiring that a substrate is rotatable by the substrate rotation assembly).
Regarding claim 3, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 1, wherein the gas filtration and circulation unit comprises a plurality of fan filter units ([0122]-[0123]), and the inkjet printer further comprises a plurality of imaging devices ([0071], fig. 5, item 2510) movably coupled to a linear track mounted to the printhead assembly support (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 3, wherein each imaging device is coupled to the linear track by a traveler (fig. 5, Note “traveler” 2302).
Regarding claim 7, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 2, wherein the printhead assembly is coupled to the printhead assembly support by a carriage (fig. 3, item 2301), and the substrate rotation assembly includes a first linear actuator coupled to a first linear support (fig. 3, item 2705) extending along a side of the flotation substrate support and a second linear actuator coupled to a second linear support (fig. 3, item 2706) extending along an end of the flotation substrate support (see fig. 3, Note that there are a number of linear actuators, and they are all directly or indirectly coupled to the supports. Again, note that the “substrate rotation assembly” has not been defined so as to actually be able to rotate a substrate).
Regarding claim 9, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 1, wherein the printhead assembly comprises a plurality of print tiles (fig. 9, items 2509, 2507, flexible flat cables), each print tile having a fluid member (fig. 9, note that each tile has a dedicated, unshown fluid connection) and an electronic member (fig. 9, note unlabeled flexible flat cables) that can be separated, and that fit together to form the tile (see fig. 9, Note that the components were separated at one point and have been fitted together).
Regarding claim 10, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 9, wherein the fluid member includes a plurality of printheads at a first end of the fluid member and a fluid connector at a second end of the fluid member, opposite from the first end, and a supply conduit and a return conduit that each extends from the printheads to the fluid connector, and the electronic member includes a digital unit, and wherein, when the fluid member and the electronic member are assembled into a print tile, the supply conduit and the return conduit are disposed on opposite sides of the digital unit (see figs. 6A, 9, Note return conduits 2522 and supply conduits 2512 on opposite ends. Note that the electronic member/flexible flat cable includes “a digital unit,” and note that, as defined above, the fluid member and the electronic member both make up the print tile, and note that the supply and return conduits are on opposite sides of the flexible flat cable).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Newman et al. (2020/0111692).
Regarding claim 5, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 4, further comprising a containment plate between the traveler and the printhead assembly support (Ko, see figs. 3, 6, Note that there is necessarily some form of “containment plate” between the traveler and the assembly support. Ko does not teach a magnetic actuator coupled to the traveler and disposed between the containment plate and the printhead assembly support. Newman teaches wherein a carriage is moved along an assembly support by a magnetic actuator (Newman, [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a maglev system of the type disclosed by Newman to the device disclosed by Ko because doing so would allow for movement of the imaging device. In other words, because Ko does not go into detail about how its imaging device reciprocates, it would have been obvious to look to Newman for information about a viable reciprocation system.
Regarding claim 6, Ko in view of Newman teaches the printing system of claim 5, further comprising an exhaust plenum disposed between the containment plate and the printhead assembly support (Ko, see figs. 3, 6, Note that there is necessarily a space forming a plenum that exhausts gas between the containment plate and the assembly support).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Vronsky et al. (2018/0014411).
Regarding claim 8, Ko teaches the printing system of claim 7. Ko does not teach wherein each of the first and the second linear actuator includes a rotatable attachment member for attaching to a substrate to be rotated by the substrate rotation assembly. Vronsky teaches this (Vronsky, see fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the rotator disclosed by Vronsky to the device disclosed by Ko because doing so would allow for rotation of the substrate to ensure proper alignment with the printing elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached 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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights