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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 31, 2024, August 5, 2025, and January 27, 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶[0019] recites, “The voltage supplier may include a first voltage supplier that supplies the voltage in a constant cycle and magnitude; and a second voltage supplier that supplies an additional voltage to the voltage being supplied from the first voltage supplier.” Voltage is defined as the difference in electrical potential between two points in space, and is single-valued at each point in space. The language of this recitation in the Specification appears to suggest the presence of two voltages at a single point somewhere within the apparatus rather than an “aggregate” voltage that represents the mathematical combination of the voltages generated by the two supplies.
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 7 and 10 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 7 recites, “a second voltage supplier that supplies an additional voltage to the voltage being supplied from the first voltage supplier.” Voltage is defined as the difference in electrical potential between two points in space, and is single-valued at each point in space. The language of this recitation from claim 7 appears to suggest the presence of two voltages at a single point somewhere within the apparatus rather than an “aggregate” voltage that represents the mathematical combination of the voltages generated by the two supplies.
For the purpose of compact examination, prior art disclosing two voltage suppliers producing two voltages that are combined within the apparatus into an aggregate voltage for the purpose of driving an ejection electrode will be considered by the Examiner as reading on the language of the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the jet environment information" and “the printing condition” in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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, 6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alleyne et al. (US 2012/0105528 A1), hereinafter Alleyne.
Regarding claim 1, Alleyne teaches an electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus comprising: a nozzle that ejects supplied ink as a droplet towards a substrate (fig. 1, 2A; nozzle tip 90, printed features 105; ¶[0149]); an electrode that is formed on the nozzle to form an electric field between the nozzle and the substrate by an applied voltage (figs. 2A-4; metal-coated glass nozzle tip 90, power supply 50; ¶[0149], [0152]); a voltage supplier that applies the voltage to the electrode (figs. 2A-4; power supply 50; ¶[0149], [0152]); and a controller that controls the voltage supplier, wherein the controller controls in real time the voltage being applied from the voltage supplier to the electrode such that a size of the droplet being ejected from the nozzle is constant (figs. 5-8, 15; process parameter input 200, output current 400, controller 800; ¶[0156]-[0158], [0208]).
Regarding claim 6, Alleyne teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls a cycle or magnitude of the voltage being supplied from the voltage supplier (figs. 9-10; ¶[0160]-[0161]).
Regarding claim 11, Alleyne teaches a method for controlling printing of an electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus that ejects a droplet towards a substrate using a force of an electric field generated by a voltage being applied to an electrode formed on a nozzle (figs. 2A-4; metal-coated glass nozzle tip 90, power supply 50; ¶[0149], [0152]), the method comprising: obtaining a size of the droplet being ejected (figs. 5-8, 15; process parameter input 200, output current 400, controller 800; ¶[0156]-[0158], [0208]); and controlling in real time the voltage being applied to the electrode such that the size of the droplet being ejected from the nozzle is constant (figs. 5-8, 15; process parameter input 200, output current 400, controller 800; ¶[0156]-[0158], [0208]).
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, 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alleyne (US 2012/0105528 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Alleyne teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an ink supplier that supplies the ink to the nozzle (fig. 2A; printable fluid chamber 20; ¶[0149], [0267]), wherein the controller controls in real time a printable fluid pressure of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling the ink supplier such that the size of the droplet being ejected is constant (see ¶[0115]-[0116], [0149], [0157], [0223], and [0267]).
Alleyne fails to explicitly teach the controller controlling a flow rate of the ink, however one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the direct relationship between the printable fluid pressure as taught by Alleyne and the flow rate of the ink in the apparatus of Alleyne, particularly in light of the teachings of paragraphs ¶[0115]-[0116], [0149], [0157], [0223], and [0267], wherein Alleyne teaches that the jetting mode and the meniscus shape of the ink in the ejecting syringe are determined by the fluid backpressure.
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 teachings of Alleyne regarding controlling the printable fluid pressure into the apparatus of Alleyne such that the flow rate of the ink is controlled to produce a constant droplet size in order to produce a uniform and precise printing output.
Regarding claim 8, Alleyne renders obvious the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 2. Alleyne further teaches wherein the ink supplier comprises a flow rate controller using pneumatic pressure, screw rotation or piezoelectric force, the controller controlling in real time the flow rate of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling the flow rate controller (fig. 1; pneumatic regulator 64; ¶[0115]-[0116], [0149], [0157], [0223], and [0267]).
Regarding claim 12, Alleyne teaches the method for controlling printing of an electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 11, the method further comprising: controlling in real time a printable fluid pressure of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling an ink supplier that supplies the ink to the nozzle (fig. 2A; printable fluid chamber 20; ¶[0149], [0267]) such that the size of the droplet being ejected from the nozzle is constant (see ¶[0115]-[0116], [0149], [0157], [0223], and [0267]).
Alleyne fails to explicitly teach controlling a flow rate of the ink, however one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the direct relationship between the printable fluid pressure as taught by Alleyne and the flow rate of the ink in the apparatus of Alleyne, particularly in light of the teachings of paragraphs ¶[0115]-[0116], [0149], [0157], [0223], and [0267], wherein Alleyne teaches for, example, that the jetting mode of the printer and the meniscus shape of the ink in the ejecting syringe are determined by the fluid backpressure.
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 teachings of Alleyne regarding controlling the printable fluid pressure into the apparatus of Alleyne such that the flow rate of the ink is controlled to produce a constant droplet size in order to produce a uniform and precise printing output.
Claims 3, 5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alleyne (US 2012/0105528 A1) in view of Sreenivasan et al. (US 10336062 B2), hereinafter Sreenivasan.
Regarding claim 3, Alleyne teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising an image acquisition part that acquires an image of the ink ejected from the nozzle (fig. 15; ¶[0177], [0266]). However, Alleyne fails to teach or fairly suggest controlling in real time a flow rate of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling an ink supplier that supplies the ink to the nozzle such that the size of the droplet being ejected from the nozzle is constant.
Sreenivasan teaches an inkjet printer comprising an image acquisition part that acquires an image of the ink ejected from the nozzle (figs. 1-2B; controller 106, piezoelectric element 112, nozzle 114, droplet 116, image acquisition system 124, cameras 126; col. 4, ln. 31 to col. 6, ln. 18), wherein the controller obtains the size of the droplet from the image acquired by the image acquisition part, and based on this, controls in real time the voltage being applied to the electrode from the voltage supplier or controls in real time the flow rate of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling the ink supplier (fig. 1; col. 6, ln. 42 to col. 8, ln. 47).
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 imaging system and methods of Sreenivasan into the apparatus of Alleyne in order to optimize droplet size to produce a preferred imaging quality.
Regarding claim 5, Alleyne as modified by Sreenivasan teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 3. Sreenivasan further teaches a droplet volume measurement part that measures a volume of the droplet ejected to the substrate or to a separate test substrate (figs. 1-2B; controller 106, piezoelectric element 112, nozzle 114, droplet 116, image acquisition system 124, cameras 126; col. 4, ln. 31 to col. 6, ln. 18, and col. 6, ln. 42 to col. 8, ln. 47), wherein the size of the droplet obtained from the image acquired by the image acquisition part is stored regarding an optimal droplet volume measured from the droplet volume measurement part, prior to printing, and the controller compares the stored size of the droplet and the size of the droplet obtained from the image acquired by the image acquisition part in real time, and controls in real time the voltage being applied to the electrode from the voltage supplier or controls in real time the flow rate of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling the ink supplier (fig. 1; memory 122; col. 6, ln. 42 to col. 8, ln. 47 and col. 9, ln. 46 to col. 12, ln. 57).
Regarding claim 9, Alleyne teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Alleyne fails to teach or fairly suggest a jet environment information provider that provides jet environment information between the nozzle and an impact point, wherein the controller accumulates a pre-printing result according to the jet environment information and a printing condition in a database, to predict an actual result being printed on a substrate, and perform printing while changing the printing condition provided in the database based on the jet environment information provided from the jet environment information provider.
However, Sreenivasan teaches an inkjet printer comprising a jet environment information provider that provides jet environment information between the nozzle and an impact point, wherein the controller accumulates a pre-printing result according to the jet environment information and a printing condition in a database, to predict an actual result being printed on a substrate, and perform printing while changing the printing condition provided in the database based on the jet environment information provided from the jet environment information provider (figs. 1-2B; controller 106, piezoelectric element 112, nozzle 114, droplet 116, memory 122, image acquisition system 124, cameras 126; col. 4, ln. 31 to col. 6, ln. 18, and col. 6, ln. 42 to col. 8, ln. 47, and col. 9, ln. 46 to col. 12, ln. 57).
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 imaging system and methods of Sreenivasan into the apparatus of Alleyne in order to optimize droplet size to produce a preferred imaging quality.
Regarding claim 10, Alleyne teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 1.
Alleyne fails to teach or fairly suggest the controller constructs a printing prediction model for predicting an actual result being printed on the substrate using machine learning techniques based on the database regarding the jet environment information and the printing condition, and controls printing under the printing condition provided in the printing prediction model based on the jet environment information.
However, Sreenivasan teaches an inkjet printer comprising a controller wherein the controller constructs a printing prediction model for predicting an actual result being printed on the substrate using machine learning techniques based on the database regarding the jet environment information and the printing condition, and controls printing under the printing condition provided in the printing prediction model based on the jet environment information (figs. 1-2B; controller 106, piezoelectric element 112, nozzle 114, droplet 116, memory 122, image acquisition system 124, cameras 126; col. 4, ln. 31 to col. 6, ln. 18, and col. 6, ln. 42 to col. 8, ln. 47, and col. 9, ln. 46 to col. 12, ln. 57).
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 imaging system and methods of Sreenivasan into the apparatus of Alleyne in order to optimize droplet size to produce a preferred imaging quality.
Claims 3-4, 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alleyne (US 2012/0105528 A1) in view of Tsukagoshi (US 20210339525 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Alleyne teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising an image acquisition part that acquires an image of the ink ejected from the nozzle (fig. 15; ¶[0177], [0266]). However, Alleyne fails to teach or fairly suggest controlling in real time a flow rate of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling an ink supplier that supplies the ink to the nozzle such that the size of the droplet being ejected from the nozzle is constant.
Tsukagoshi teaches a liquid discharge device and liquid discharge control device comprising an image acquisition part that acquires an image of the ink ejected from the nozzle, wherein the controller obtains the size of the droplet from the image acquired by the image acquisition part, and based on this, controls in real time the voltage being applied to the electrode from the voltage supplier or controls in real time the flow rate of the ink being supplied to the nozzle by controlling the ink supplier (figs. 2, 7-10; discharge controller 110, output waveform generation unit 111, adhesion state detector 120, camera 121, pulsed light source 122, state determination unit 130, parameter update unit 140; ¶[0030]-[0042]).
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 discharge control system and methods of Tsukagoshi into the apparatus of Alleyne in order to optimize droplet size to produce a preferred imaging quality.
Regarding claim 4, Alleyne as modified by Tsukagoshi teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 3. Tsukagoshi further teaches the image acquisition part acquires the image of the droplet impacted on the substrate, and the controller obtains the size of the droplet from a size area of the droplet of the acquired image (figs. 2, 7-10; discharge controller 110, output waveform generation unit 111, adhesion state detector 120, camera 121, pulsed light source 122, state determination unit 130, parameter update unit 140; ¶[0030]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Alleyne teaches the electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the voltage supplier comprises a first voltage supplier that supplies the voltage in a certain cycle and magnitude (fig. 2A; power supply 50; ¶[0149]). However, Alleyne fails to teach or fairly suggest a second voltage supplier that supplies an additional voltage to the voltage being supplied from the first voltage supplier, wherein the controller controls such that the size of the droplet being ejected is constant by controlling the second voltage supplier according to the size of the droplet being detected in real time.
Tsukagoshi teaches a liquid discharge device and liquid discharge control device comprising a first voltage supplier that supplies the voltage in a certain cycle and magnitude, and a second voltage supplier that supplies an additional voltage to the voltage being supplied from the first voltage supplier, wherein the controller controls such that the size of the droplet being ejected is constant by controlling the second voltage supplier according to the size of the droplet being detected in real time (fig. 3; output voltage control unit 112, output voltage generation unit 1121, output phase control unit 113, reference cycle count unit 1132, waveform transmission unit 1134; ¶[0038]-[0042]).
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 discharge control system and methods of Tsukagoshi into the apparatus of Alleyne in order to optimize the driving waveform to produce a desired droplet size.
Regarding claim 13, Alleyne renders obvious the method for controlling printing of an electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus according to claim 12. However, Alleyne fails to teach or fairly suggest the size of the droplet is obtained by acquiring an image of the droplet impacted on the substrate and then obtaining a size area of the droplet of the acquired image.
Tsukagoshi teaches a liquid discharge device and liquid discharge control method wherein the size of the droplet is obtained by acquiring an image of the droplet impacted on the substrate and then obtaining a size area of the droplet of the acquired image (figs. 2, 7-10; discharge controller 110, output waveform generation unit 111, adhesion state detector 120, camera 121, pulsed light source 122, state determination unit 130, parameter update unit 140; ¶[0030]-[0042]).
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 discharge control method of Tsukagoshi into the method of Alleyne in order to optimize droplet size to produce a preferred imaging quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, ejecting an optimal volume droplet to the substrate or to a separate test substrate, prior to printing; and obtaining and storing the size of the optimal volume droplet from the image of the droplet impacted on the substrate, and comparing the stored size of the droplet and the size of the droplet obtained from the acquired image in real time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Price et al. (US 20220414380 A1) teaches a method for defining a model for a liquid metal printer comprising steps to predict the jetting behavior of a 3D printer. Yogi et al. (US 20070273718 A1) teaches a droplet forming method comprising forming a droplet from a nozzle by applying a pulsed voltage and estimating the volume of the droplet. Harjee et al. (US 20150099059 A1) teaches an ink printing process comprising characterizing ink droplets in flight using an optical capture system. Byun et al. (US 20210260876 A1) teaches an electrohydrodynamic jet printing apparatus with an additional electrode.
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