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 without traverse of Invention E and Specie I in the reply filed on 5/12/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-16, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/26.
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.
Claim 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the metes and bounds of the terms “typical printing operations” do not appear to be defined.
Dependent claim 8 is considered rejected for incorporating defects from rejected parent claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darling (US 10046558 B1) in view of Owaki et al. (US 20140104348 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Darling discloses A marking system comprising:
a printhead (150, fig. 1, col 3, lines 57-66) comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to eject ink (inherent in Darling);
a fluid supply system configured to supply ink to printhead (inherent in Darling), the fluid supply system comprising:
an ink reservoir fluidly positioned to hold the ink for delivery to the printhead (inherent in Darling),
a degasser (inherent in col 5, lines 37-42) fluidly coupled to a conduit that is positioned to supply the ink from the degasser to the ink reservoir (inherent in col 5, lines 37-42), the degasser configured to degas the ink as ink passes therethrough (inherent in col 5, lines 37-42), and
a pump fluidly configured to provide pressure to one or more components of the fluid supply system (see col 5, lines 43-57); and
a control system configured to:
control the ejection of ink from the plurality of nozzles (inherent in Darling), and
in response to detection of a missing nozzle condition in the printhead, activate a protocol that comprises initiating one or more cycles that comprise operating the pump at a pressure that is lower than a normal operating pressure of the pump to eject the degassed ink through the plurality of nozzles until the missing nozzle condition ends (See col 5, lines 28-57. Darling teaches applying a vacuum to the printhead, but does not expressly teach that this is achieved via a pump. However, Owaki teaches that such a vacuum can be achieved via a pump. See Owaki’s fig. 10 and para 85 which teaches that a negative pressure pump can be installed in the discharge path 210 to adjust pressure at the nozzles. It would be obvious to adopt the pump of Owaki for the purpose of keeping costs low and achieving a compact design. When the pump of Owaki is adopted in Darling, then the pump would lower its normal operating pressure, which is used to maintain a meniscus, in order to allow the ink to drool out of the nozzles.), a threshold number of cycles have completed, or a threshold period of time is reached.
Regarding claim 7, Darling, as modified by Owaki, discloses all the limitations introduced in parent claim 1.
Darling as modified by Owaki, does not appear to explicitly disclose The marking system of claim 1, wherein the pressure at which the pump is operated during the protocol is a pressure from about 1% to about 10% of the standard operating pressure of the pump during typical printing operations of the marking system.
However, the limitations introduced in claim 7 would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would be desirable to optimize the effectiveness of the nozzle recovery process, and it would be reasonable to expect one of ordinary skill to fairly quickly converge at such limitations with limited experimentation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Darling, as modified by Owaki, discloses all the limitations introduced in parent claims 1 and 7.
Darling as modified by Owaki, does not appear to explicitly disclose The marking system of claim 7, wherein the pressure during the protocol is in a range of .25 PSI to .5 PSI.
However, the limitations introduced in claim 8 would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would be desirable to optimize the effectiveness of the nozzle recovery process, and it would be reasonable to expect one of ordinary skill to fairly quickly converge at such limitations with limited experimentation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 17, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 7. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 18, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 8. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN SEO whose telephone number is (571)270-1327. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 I 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.
/JUSTIN SEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights