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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Dorvat does not disclose that the baffles 508 and 512 are arranged parallel to each other”, please note that fig. 5 of the reference shows each ink tank (104 and 112) having two baffles, with the baffles to the left in each tank being parallel to the baffles to the right in each tank in the carriage movement direction (504), meeting the claim as written. Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Dorvat also does not disclose that each compartment within the container has a width, measured in a direction parallel to a printing stroke, that is smaller than a larger of a height or a width of the bulkheads”, please note that, as corroborated by Applicant, the reference teaches “two baffles in each ink tank 104 that are arranged aligned with each other in the middle of ink tank 104, with gaps between the side wall and the outer lateral edges of the baffles, and between lateral edges of the two baffles”, meeting the limitation as written since the width of each (upper half / lower half) compartment in the carriage movement direction (504 in fig. 5) is smaller than a height of the baffles if the height of the ink tank is taken as that seen in figs. 1-4.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 4-5, “correspondence with bowl-shaped” should be replaced -- correspondence with a bowl-shaped --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 21, “at least sone” should be replaced by -- at least some --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 18, “each other each compartment” should be replaced by – each other, each compartment --. 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 10-14 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first or the second container" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected the same way since they depend on claim 10 and include all of its limitations.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the containers” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that he claim previously includes a “first container” and a “second container”. Claim 13 is rejected the same way since it depends on claim 12 and include all of its limitations.
Please re-check the rest of the claims for consistency.
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 1-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dorvat et al. (US 2023/0173818 – hereinafter Dorvat.)
Regarding claim 1,
Dorvat discloses a system [100 in figs. 1 and 4-5] for recirculation of ink or other material, fed to a printing head [108 in figs. 1 and 4-5], comprising:
one or more containers [104/112 in figs. 1 and 4-5] associated with a printing head [108 in figs. 1 and 4-5] and translatable along a predefined printing stroke together with the printing head [paragraph 0037; “the ink delivery system 100 would be mounted on a carriage moving back and force [sic] over a substrate”]; and
anti-sloshing devices [508/512 in fig. 5] of the ink or other material contained within the one or more containers [paragraph 0037; claim 32],
wherein the anti-sloshing devices comprise a plurality of bulkheads [baffles are bulkheads with holes in them] disposed inside an internal chamber of at least one of the one or more containers transversely to a direction of translation of the one or more containers [504 in fig. 5; as seen in fig. 5; paragraph 0037],
wherein the plurality of bulkheads is in fixed position and divides the internal chamber into a plurality of inter-communicating compartments [region in each ink tank at either side of the baffles (i.e. upper half and lower side in the direction of arrow 504 in fig. 5)], the plurality of bulkheads comprising bulkheads arranged parallel with each other [fig. 5 of the reference shows each ink tank (104 and 112) having two baffles, with the baffles on the left in each tank being parallel to the baffles on the right in each tank in the carriage movement direction (504), meeting the claim as written], each compartment having a width, measured in a direction parallel to a printing stroke [504 in fig. 5], that is smaller than a larger of a height or a width of the bulkheads [the width of each (upper half / lower half) compartment in the carriage movement direction (504 in fig. 5) is smaller than a height of the baffles if the height of the ink tank is taken as that seen in figs. 1-4],
whereby the inter-communicating compartments reduce an inertial sloshing of an ink or other material within the one or more containers due to acceleration or deceleration of the containers [paragraph 0037.]
Regarding claim 2,
Dorvat further discloses wherein the one or more containers comprise:
a first container [104 in figs. 4-5] of the ink or other material connected to a supply circuit of the ink or other material and provided upstream of the printing head [as seen in figs. 4-5; paragraph 0028]; and
a second container [112 in figs. 4-5] for of the ink or other material, connected downstream of the printing head (13) [as seen in figs. 4-5; paragraph 0028];
the system further comprising:
a first recirculation sub-unit [flow path with arrows 152 in fig. 4] that generates a first flow of the ink or other material from the first container towards and through the printing head and the second container [paragraph 0029]; and
a second recirculation sub-unit [flow path with pump 404 in fig. 4] that transfers the ink or other material from the second container to the first container [paragraph 0034],
wherein the first and/or the second container comprise the one or more anti-sloshing devices [as seen in fig. 5; paragraph 0037.]
Regarding claim 3,
Dorvat further discloses wherein the plurality of inter-communicating compartments comprise three or more parallel inter-communicating compartments [fig. 5 shows four compartments (i.e., two compartments in each ink tank 104/112) parallel in a direction perpendicular to that shown by arrow 504.]
Regarding claim 4,
Dorvat further discloses wherein the plurality of bulkheads extend through a lower portion of the internal chamber, leaving an upper portion of the internal chamber free from the plurality of bulkheads [well-known and implicit from figs. 1-2b; also note that in page 9 of the Response of Office Action, Applicant corroborates that “anti-sloshing baffles that are attached to the bottom walls of containers” is well-known in the art.]
Regarding claim 5,
Dorvat further discloses wherein the inter-communicating compartments communicate with each other through at least one of a clearance between a perimeter edge of at least one bulkhead and a side wall of the container, or one or more openings defined in at least one bulkhead [since baffles are bulkheads with holes in them; please note that only one option is needed for the claim to be met as written.]
Regarding claim 6,
Dorvat further discloses wherein the plurality of bulkheads extend between opposite side walls of the one or more containers [as seen in fig. 5; please note that the baffles are positioned inside the container within the walls of the container.]
Regarding claim 7,
Dorvat further discloses the system further comprising at least one anti- sloshing element arranged in an upper portion of the one or more containers [112 in fig. 5] above the plurality of bulkheads [inside ink tank 104 in fig. 5; please note that a point of reference or direction (i.e., above the plurality of bulkheads in what direction?) is not included in the claim.]
Regarding claim 12,
Dorvat discloses a recirculation system [100 in figs. 1 and 4-5] for ink or other material, fed to a printing head [108 in figs. 1 and 4-5], comprising:
a first container [104 in figs. 4-5] of the ink or other material, connected to a supply circuit and provided upstream of the printing head [as seen in figs. 4-5; paragraph 0028];
a second container [112 in figs. 4-5] for the ink or other material, connected downstream of the printing head [as seen in figs. 4-5; paragraph 0028];
a first recirculation sub-unit [flow path with arrows 152 in fig. 4] for generating a first flow of the ink or other material from the first container toward the printing head and the second container [paragraph 0029]; and
a second recirculation sub-unit [flow path with pump 404 in fig. 4] for transferring the ink or other material from the second container to the first container [paragraph 0034],
wherein the first container and the second container and anti-sloshing devices [508/512 in fig. 5] provided in the first container and the second container are made in one piece with an additive manufacturing process [as seen in figs. 1 and 4], and
wherein the anti-sloshing devices comprise a plurality of bulkheads [baffles are bulkheads with holes in them] disposed inside an internal chamber of the first container and the second container transversely to a direction of translation of the first container and the second container [arrow 504 in fig. 5; as seen in fig. 5; paragraph 0037],
wherein the plurality of bulkheads is in fixed position and divides the internal chamber into a plurality of inter-communicating compartments [region in each ink tank at either side of the baffles (i.e. upper half and lower side in the direction of arrow 504 in fig. 5)], the plurality of bulkheads comprising bulkheads arranged parallel with each other [fig. 5 of the reference shows each ink tank (104 and 112) having two baffles, with the baffles on the left in each tank being parallel to the baffles on the right in each tank in the carriage movement direction (504), meeting the claim as written] each compartment having a width, measured in a direction parallel to a printing stroke [504 in fig. 5], that is smaller than a larger of a height or a width of the bulkheads [the width of each (upper half / lower half) compartment in the carriage movement direction (504 in fig. 5) is smaller than a height of the baffles if the height of the ink tank is taken as that seen in figs. 1-4], whereby the inter-communicating compartments reduce an inertial sloshing of an ink or other material within the one or more containers due to acceleration or deceleration of the containers [paragraph 0037.]
Regarding claim 13,
Dorvat further discloses wherein the plurality of bulkheads have a predetermined extension and a predetermined shape [a baffle is an internal partition/divider/wall], even different from each other [this limitation reads as being optional and is not given patentable weight], and are housed inside at least part of an internal chamber of the first container and/or the second container and define impediments or brakes to a free flow of a liquid material inside the first container and/or the second container following a translation of the first container and/or the second container together with the printing head [paragraph 0037; as seen in fig. 5.]
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being considered by Makarevski et al. (EP 3501835 – hereinafter Makarevski.)
Regarding claim 10,
Makarevski discloses a recirculation system [1 in figs. 2a-2b] for ink or other material, fed to a printing head, comprising:
a recirculation container [10/20 in fig. 2b] associated with a printing head and translatable along a predefined printing stroke together with the printing head [the container is mounted on the carriage (102 in fig. 1); paragraphs 0031-0032],
wherein the recirculation container comprises a discharge outlet [16/26 in fig. 2b] on a bottom thereof [paragraphs 0038-0039], the discharge outlet being provided at a lowest point of a bottom of the recirculation container [as seen in fig. 2b], the lowest point being provided in correspondence with a bowl or well extension of at least a portion of the bottom of the recirculation container [as seen in fig. 2b], the bowl or well extension having a funnel shape defined by a lateral wall that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the recirculation container and by an opposing lateral wall that is inclined in relation to the longitudinal axis of the first or the second container and converging toward an opening of the discharge outlet [as seen in fig. 2b; also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 14,
Makarevski further discloses a printing apparatus [100 in fig. 1] on a printing material comprising:
the recirculation system according to claim 10 [see Rejection above];
the printing head [not shown but mentioned 0029] for ejecting onto the printing material the ink or other material [paragraph 0029]; and
a supply circuit [300 in fig. 1] to the printing head of the ink or other material [paragraph 0041, the ink is circulated from the system 300 into the ink chamber 10 and into the printing head],
wherein the supply circuit comprises a tank for containing the ink or other material, connected to the printing head through the recirculation system to generate a recirculation of the ink or other material through the printing head [as seen in figs. 1 and 2b; paragraph 0041.]
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorvat in view of Makarevski.
Regarding claim 8,
Dorvat discloses the claimed limitations as forth above and further teaches wherein the first and/or the second container comprises a discharge outlet [412 in fig. 4] on a bottom thereof, the discharge outlet being at a lowest point of a bottom of the first and/or the second container, the lowest point being located in correspondence with bowl-shaped or well-shaped extension having a funnel shape converging towards a corresponding opening of the discharge outlet [as seen in figs. 1 and 4.]
However, Dorvat fails to expressly disclose wherein the funnel shape being defined by a lateral wall that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the first or the second container and by an opposing lateral wall that is inclined in relation to the longitudinal axis of the first or the second container.
In the same field of endeavor Makarevski discloses a recirculation system [1 in figs. 2a-2b] for ink or other material, fed to a printing head, comprising:
a container [10/20 in fig. 2b] associated with a printing head and translatable along a predefined printing stroke together with the printing head [the container is mounted on the carriage (102 in fig. 1); paragraphs 0031-0032],
wherein the container comprises a discharge outlet [16/26 in fig. 2b] on a bottom thereof [paragraphs 0038-0039], the discharge outlet being at a lowest point of a bottom of the container [as seen in fig. 2b], the lowest point being located in correspondence with a bowl-shaped or well-shaped extension having a funnel shape defined by a lateral wall that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the container and by an opposing lateral wall that is inclined in relation to the longitudinal axis of the container and converging toward an opening of the discharge outlet [as seen in fig. 2b.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container in the Dorvat invention to have the funnel shape as taught by Makarevski for the purpose of controlling the sloshing of ink inside a container (paragraph 0009) while being less susceptible to sedimentation of pigment particles (paragraph 0005.) Also note that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to change the shape of the funnel/container, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claims 1-3 and 8, wherein bottom edges of the plurality of bulkheads are spaced from bottom walls of the one or more containers.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Regarding claim 11,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claim 10, the recirculation system further comprising:
anti-sloshing devices of the ink or other material contained within the recirculation container,
wherein the anti-sloshing devices comprise a plurality of bulkheads having a predetermined extension and a predetermined shape, even different from each other, which are housed inside at least part of an internal chamber of the recirculation container and define impediments or brakes to a free flow of a liquid material inside the recirculation container following a translation of the recirculation container together with the printing head, and
wherein the plurality of bulkheads is in fixed position and divides the internal chamber into a plurality of inter-communicating compartments, the plurality of bulkheads comprising bulkheads arranged parallel with each other, each compartment having a width, measured in a direction parallel to a printing stroke, that is smaller a larger of a height or a width of the bulkheads, whereby the inter- communicating compartments reduce an inertial sloshing of an ink or other material within the recirculation container due to acceleration or deceleration of the containers,
wherein bottom edges of the plurality of bulkheads are spaced from bottom walls of the recirculation containers, and
wherein at least sone of the anti-sloshing devices are made in one piece with side walls of the recirculation container.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights