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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/17/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 6/1/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered. Each argument will be addressed individually.
Regarding the anticipation rejection over Cruz-Uribe et al., Applicant argues that the heat-exchange region of Cruz-Uribe et al.’s drive IC die 204a corresponds to the claimed “heat transfer element.” Applicant then determines that, because the IC die 204a is connected to the substrate 202a with adhesive, it is a separate component that cannot form a single piece with the main body and ink inlet/outlet (page 8 of remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In pointing to paragraph 37 to describe the claimed “heat transfer element,” it was Examiner’s intent to highlight the heat-exchange such that the breadth of the claim limitation may be disclosed by various elements within Cruz-Uribe et al.’s printhead. For example, in light of the recent amendments, Examiner may point to the coolant that flows through substrate 202a via channels 272. Any of the channels 272 may correspond to the claimed heat-exchange element. Because the ink inlet 240 and ink outlet 242 are also formed within the substrate 202a, Cruz-Uribe et al. disclose that each of the above elements consist of the same material (that of substrate 202a). It is also clear that these parts form a single printhead 200a (a “single piece”), as shown in Fig. 3.
Therefore, Examiner has found no reason to withdraw this prior art rejection.
Regarding the obviousness rejection over Cameno Salinas et al. in view of Sakuma, Applicant argues that Cameno Salinas is a multi-part assembly and does not disclose elements that “consists of the same material and form a single piece” (page 9 of remarks). However, Applicant’s claimed ink conditioner is also a multi-part assembly, in that it comprises a main body, a heat transfer element, at least one ink inlet, and at least one ink outlet.
Applicant also contends that the rigid shells and rubber membrane disclosed by Cameno Salinas are formed of different materials (page 10 of remarks). However, claim 1 does not require a membrane; therefore, the membrane is not While claim 5 may require a membrane, there is no limitation that requires the membrane to also consist of the same material and form a single piece, as argued. Using Applicant’s argumentative logic, all parts a functional ink conditioner must consist of the same material and form a single piece, even if unclaimed as such. Such logic, then, raises questions as to the support of various other claimed features, such as the membrane (claim 5) and the pressure sensors (claim 9), which were not originally disclosed as consisting of the same material as the main body, the heat transfer member, and/or the ink inlet/ink outlet.
Applicant also contends that the combination of Cameno Salinas with Sakuma does not disclose the feature that “the main body, the heat transfer element, the at least one ink inlet, and the at least one ink outlet consist of the same material and form a single piece” because “Sakuma’s heat transfer element comprises a discrete heating wire (heating portion 8) and a Peltier-type cooling portion 7 … that are separate components made of their own distinct materials” (page 10 of remarks). However, it must first be noted that the claimed “heat transfer element” cannot be interpreted to comprise the heating/cooling element itself, as Applicant’s own disclosure points to the structure surrounding the heating/cooling element (i.e. cavity 26: page 7 of Applicant’s disclosure). With this understanding, it was Examiner intent to show that it would have been obvious to form the connection portions of Cameno Salinas such that a heating/cooling portion may be built into the connection portions, as taught by Sakuma. As such, some element of these connection portions naturally functions as the claimed “heat transfer element.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Cruz-Uribe et al. (US 2015/0124019 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Cruz-Uribe et al. disclose an ink conditioner for an inkjet printer, the ink conditioner comprising:
a main body (substrate 202a) with an ink damping cavity (air gap 256);
a heat transfer element (paragraph 37);
at least one ink inlet (240); and
at least one ink outlet (242),
wherein the main body, the heat transfer element, the at least one ink inlet, and the at least one ink outlet consist of a same material (that of substrate 202a) and form a single piece (at least, to form the printhead: paragraph 33 & Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameno Salinas et al. (US 2017/0368834 A1) in view of Sakuma (US 2001/0043244 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Cameno Salinas et al. disclose an ink conditioner for an inkjet printer, the ink conditioner comprising:
a main body (at least one of rigid shells 302, 304) with an ink damping cavity (Fig. 5);
a connection portion (any portion of 314, 316, and/or 318);
at least one ink inlet (at least one of inlets 316, 318); and
at least one ink outlet (at least outlet 314),
wherein the main body, the connection portion, the at least one ink inlet, and the at least one ink outlet consist of the same material (at least a “rigid” material) and form a single piece (at least, to form valve 300: paragraph 27 & Figs. 3, 5).
Cameno Salinas et al. do not expressly disclose a heat transfer member, and thus does not expressly disclose a heat transfer element.
However, Sakuma discloses an ink conditioner for an inkjet printer, the ink conditioner comprising a heat transfer member (corresponding to any of heating portion 8 and cooling portion 7) built into a connection portion of the ink conditioner (paragraph 40 & Figs. 9-12) to enable the ink viscosity to be stably controlled (paragraph 47).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to build-in a heat transfer member into an ink connection portion, as taught by Sakuma, in the ink conditioner of Cameo Salinas et al. In doing so, the connection portion about the heat transfer member acts as a heat transfer element.
Regarding claims 2-3:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the main body, the heat transfer element, the at least one ink inlet, and the at least one ink outlet include a 3D-printed titanium metal.
However, Cameno Salinas et al. do also disclose that the main body, the heat transfer element, the at least one ink inlet, and the at least one ink outlet include a rigid material (paragraph 29).
Further, it has been held that the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a titanium material as the desired rigid material, since titanium is well known as a rigid material capable of withstanding the types of forces applied in ink conditioners.
Furthermore, the feature that the titanium is 3-D printed amounts to a product-by-process limitation. Please note that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. Because various materials, including resins and metals, are commonly 3-D printable, the feature that the structure was 3-D printed does not impart any additional structural limitations on the claimed ink conditioner.
Regarding claim 4:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the ink damping cavity has a circular shape (Fig. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 5:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose a membrane (diaphragm 306) for sealing the ink damping cavity (paragraph 28 & Fig. 3); and a spring plate (rigid disc 402), wherein the membrane is located between the main body and the spring plate (Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 6:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the main body comprises at least one linear channel (spring housing) with an opening inside the ink damping cavity (Fig. 5) configured to receiving a spring plate guiding element (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Sakuma also discloses that the heat transfer element comprises a cavity (of connection 2) configured to receive a heating element (heater 8), and an ink channel surrounding the cavity (Figs. 9-12).
Regarding claim 8:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 7, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the ink channel comprises an ink outlet (printhead outlet 314) configured to be directly connected to an inlet of a print head (paragraph 29 & Figs. 3, 10).
Regarding claim 10:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose a connection zone configured to receive a screw or bolt for connecting the ink conditioner directly to a print head (e.g. the screw/bolt holes shown in Fig. 3 are capable of use for connection to the printhead).
Regarding claim 11:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose a valve (check valve 312) for print head flushing (valve 312 may be used for example, when performing a flushing operation with the printhead: paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 12:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 7, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the walls forming the cavity and the ink channel consist of rigid material (paragraphs 27, 30 & Fig. 3), such that heat generated by the heating element may be conducted through the walls to ink within the ink channel (while the particular material is not disclosed, some degree of heat conduction is inherent: paragraph 27, 30).
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner does not expressly disclose that the rigid material is titanium.
However, it has been held that the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a titanium material as the desired rigid material, since titanium is well known as a rigid material capable of withstanding the types of forces applied in ink conditioners.
Regarding claim 13:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 5, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the membrane is circular (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 6, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the ink conditioner further comprises a spring plate (rigid disc 402), wherein the spring plate guiding element may be a spring-mounted piston may be capable of pressing against the spring plate (paragraph 30 & Figs. 4-5).
Examiner notes that the spring plate guiding element is not recited as a component of the ink conditioner, but that the ink damping cavity is merely “configured to receive” such a spring plate guiding element. Therefore, limitations directed to the particular structure of the spring plate guiding element are not germane to the patentability of the ink conditioner, beyond the conditioners structural ability to receive such a spring plate guiding element.
Regarding claim 16:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the single piece is free of sealing parts made from rubber (the diaphragm 306 may not be part of a piece formed by the rigid shells, inlets, and outlets: Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 5, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the membrane is elastically deformable and configured to deflect upon fluctuation of ink pressure within the ink damping cavity so as to change a volume of the ink damping cavity such that the pressure fluctuations are damped (paragraphs 29-34).
Regarding claim 18:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the ink conditioner comprises a valve (306) configured to regulate ink flow through the at least one ink outlet (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 19:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Cameno Salinas et al. also disclose that the single piece further comprises a flush inlet (purging port 320) through which a flushing liquid for print head cleaning can enter the ink conditioner (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 20:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 6, and Sakuma also discloses that the ink channel is configured to adjust a temperature of the ink directly before the ink enters the print head (paragraph 34 & Figs. 9-12).
Because the claims are directed towards an “ink conditioner” that does not comprise a print head, this claimed feature is understood such that the ink channel is configured to adjust a temperature of the ink before exiting the at least one ink outlet.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameno Salinas et al. as modified by Sakuma, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ogura (US 2011/0234678 A1) and Pott et al. (US 2023/0184611 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 7, but does not expressly comprise first and second pressure sensors configured to measure an ink pressure inside of the ink channel.
However, Ogura disclose an ink conditioner (6) comprising a pressure sensor assembly (pressure detector 4) at an outlet ink channel (liquid outflow port 3), so as to detect the pressure applied to a liquid ejecting head (paragraph 35).
However, Pott et al. disclose a pressure sensor assembly (strain gauger 12) disposed on a liquid channel (connection socket 1: Fig. 1), the pressure sensor assembly comprising a first pressure sensor (a first strain measurement sensor 13) configured to measure an liquid pressure in a first pressure range inside of a liquid channel (paragraphs 41-42 & Fig. 1); and a second pressure sensor (a second strain measurement sensor 13) configured to measure a liquid pressure in a second pressure range inside of the liquid channel (paragraphs 41-42 & Fig. 1). Pott et al. teach that such a configuration improves measurement quality (paragraph 55).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a pressure sensor assembly having first and second pressure sensors configured to measure a liquid pressure in the outlet ink channel of Cameno Salina et al.’s modified ink conditioner, as suggested by the prior art to Ogura and Pott et al.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameno Salinas et al. as modified by Sakuma, Ogura, and Pott et al., as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chover Lopez et al. (US 2019/0070860 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Cameno Salinas et al.’s modified ink conditioner comprises all the limitations of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose the first pressure range or the second pressure range.
However, Chover Lopez et al. disclose an ink conditioner in which ink is supplied in a print fluid supply pathway within a target range, such as between 10kPa and 50kPa (paragraph 19).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize pressure sensors having ranges up to 1 bar, as suggested by Chover Lopez et al.
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 Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Douglas 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights