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 with traverse of Species E, claims 1-3, 7-8, and 13-20 in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits the following grounds for traverse: the above Species A, B, C, D, and E are so interrelated that it is possible for the Examiner to examine claims 1-20 in a single search of reasonable burden.” This is not found persuasive because although there is no requirement to show separate classification in regards to an election of species, a burden does exist because a separate search would be required.
Claims 4-6 and 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 May 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 February 2025 and 09 February 2026, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 08 July 2024 are accepted.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at page 1, paragraph 0001, U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/811,049 is now United States Patent No. 12,053,989.
2. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (US 8,449,087) in view of Baker et al. (US 10,000,065).
With respect to claim 1, Kataoka discloses a method for painting a surface using an inkjet printing system having a printhead coupled to a frame, the printhead having a nozzle, the method comprising:
providing ink (Column 3, lines 34-35) to the printhead (Fig. 1, element 10; Column 4, lines 59-60);
selectively discharging ink droplets (Column 4, lines 42-47) from the nozzle (Fig. 4, element 11) onto the surface (Fig. 17, element P);
the frame (Fig. 17, element 1010) is provided to the printhead (Column 2, line 66 – Column 3, line 8); and
dynamically controlling a pressure differential at the nozzle (Column 9, lines 43-47, i.e. Pnzl).
However, Kataoka fails to disclose actuating the frame in at least one degree of freedom as the ink is provided to the printhead.
Baker discloses an inkjet printing system (Fig. 1, element 20) capable of actuating (Fig. 1, element 30) the frame (Fig. 1, element 24) in at least one degree of freedom (Claims 1 and 10) as the ink is provided to the printhead (Fig. 1, element 22).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the frame actuator of Baker in the liquid discharge apparatus of Kataoka. The motivation for doing so would have been “Systems that provide one or more static pressure levels, however, do not adequately manage backpressure in inkjet systems that are configured to print on complex, three-dimensional surfaces, where backpressure requirements may change as the printhead is placed at different attitudes relative to the surface to be printed” (Column 1, lines 22-27).
With respect to claim 2, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 disclose providing ink further comprises supplying ink to the nozzle through a feed line (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 16) fluidly coupled to an ink supply (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 100; Column 5, lines 4-10, Column 7, lines 35-37) and the nozzle; and removing the ink from the nozzle through a recirculation line (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 20) fluidly coupled to the nozzle and the ink supply independent of the feed line (Kataoka at Column 5, lines 4-10).
With respect to claim 3, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 disclose wherein providing ink further comprises: generating a feed fluid pressure in a feed line (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 28) between a feed pump (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 54) and the nozzle (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 12) using the feed pump disposed in the feed line, wherein the feed pump has a variable feed pump speed (Kataoka at Column 8, lines 48-54 and Column 16, lines 13-15); and generating a recirculation fluid pressure in a recirculation line (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 30) between a recirculation pump (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 80) and the nozzle (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 12) using the recirculation pump disposed in the recirculation line, wherein the recirculation pump has a variable recirculation pump speed (Kataoka at Column 8, lines 48-54 and Column 16, lines 13-15).
With respect to claim 7, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 3 disclose generating, via at least one pressure sensor (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 40), a feed line pressure signal indicative of an actual feed fluid pressure (Kataoka at Column 5, lines 60-64) and a recirculation line pressure signal (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 42) indicative of an actual recirculation fluid pressure (Kataoka at Column 5, lines 60-64); and controlling the variable feed pump speed and the variable recirculation pump speed based on the feed line pressure signal and the recirculation line pressure signal, respectively (Kataoka at Column 9, lines 17-52).
With respect to claim 8, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 7 disclose housing the at least one pressure sensor (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 40 or 42) in a pressure manifold (Kataoka at Fig. 1, element 14 or 18).
With respect to claim 13, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 disclose wherein dynamically controlling the pressure differential further comprises: calculating a head pressure adjustment to a target feed fluid pressure and a target recirculation fluid pressure (Kataoka at Column 9, lines 17-52).
With respect to claim 14, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 13 disclose wherein calculating the head pressure adjustment to the target feed fluid pressure and the target recirculation fluid pressure further comprises: changing the head pressure adjustment according to an orientation of the printhead (Baker at Column 3, lines 17-24); and applying the head pressure adjustment to preliminary feed and recirculation pressure calculations to arrive at the target feed fluid pressure and the target recirculation fluid pressure (Baker at Column 4, line 40 – Column 5, line 63).
With respect to claim 15, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 14 disclose calculating the head pressure adjustment based on the orientation of the printhead using trigonometry (Baker at Column 5, lines 28-37).
With respect to claim 16, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 15 disclose the head pressure adjustment is equal to a product of: a distance between a meniscus level of the nozzle and at least one pressure sensor, and a cosine of an inferred angle of a longitudinal axis of the printhead (Baker at Column 6, lines 8-28).
With respect to claim 17, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 disclose determining an orientation of a longitudinal axis of the printhead based on an orientation signal from an orientation sensor (Baker at Column 4, lines 40-51).
With respect to claim 18, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 17 disclose configuring the orientation sensor as an accelerometer mounted to the printhead (Baker at Column 4, lines 40-51).
With respect to claim 19, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 17 disclose configuring the orientation sensor to detect orientations of the printhead in multiple axes relative to a vertical reference axis (Baker at Column 3, lines 17-24).
With respect to claim 20, Kataoka in view of Baker as applied to claim 17 disclose providing orientation feedback via a computer numerical control machine (Baker at Fig. 5, element 120; Column 5, lines 10-21 and Column 6, lines 45-54).
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 PM.
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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights