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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Doyle (US 2008/0250950). Regarding claim 1, Doyle discloses “a clamp (Figure 7) for attaching a squeegee module to a print head (Figure 7), the clamp comprising first (item 54) and second bars (item 56) connected together via a resiliently deformable biasing member (item 62), such that the first and second bars are biased away from a release configuration in which the first and second bars are relatively close to each other into a clamping configuration in which the first and second bars are relatively distant from each other (Figure 7, paragraph 31), the first bar having a lower surface, an upper surface which faces the second bar (Figure 7), and, located on the upper surface, an interface configured for connection to the print head (at least item 54, Figure 7, paragraph 31) in use, and the second bar comprising an upper surface (Figure 7).” Regarding the remainder of the claim, the claim is drawn to a clamp, and the only structural components required of the claim are the first and second bars, the spring, and an interface; the print head or a squeegee are not part of the claimed clamp. Thus, the remainder of the claim does not recite any structure which defines over the structure shown by Doyle. Regarding claim 2, Doyle further discloses “wherein the first and second bars comprise respective slots, the respective slots being in registration such that a portion of the squeegee module may be accommodated within the respective slot (paragraph 31, items 57. Examiner notes that linear bearings satisfy the requirements of slots).” Regarding claim 3, Doyle further discloses “wherein the slots are substantially C or U-shaped (items 57: Examiner notes that linear bearings are substantially C-shaped).” Regarding claim 4, Doyle further discloses “wherein the biasing member comprises a compression spring (item 62).” Regarding claim 5, Doyle further discloses “wherein the compression spring is retained within a telescopically-sliding chamber formed between the first and second bars (Examiner interprets the volume within which the spring moves in Figure 7 to be the recited chamber).” Regarding claim 6, Doyle further discloses “wherein the second bar comprises an opening dimensioned to receive the interface (see the recess in item 56 in Figure 7).” Regarding claim 7, Doyle further discloses “formed as a module for releasable and repeatable mounting to the print head via the interface (paragraph 31; see Figure 7. Examiner interprets the configuration shown in Figure 7 to be ‘a module’).” Regarding claim 8, Doyle further discloses “a print head (item 20) comprising the clamp of claim 1 (Figures).” Regarding claim 9, Doyle further discloses “comprising a vertically movable shuttle (see the chain in Figure 3; paragraph 29: z-axis motion assembly), and wherein the clamp is connected to the shuttle via the interface (Figure 7, paragraph 31).” Regarding claim 10, Doyle further discloses “comprising an abutment surface at a lower end thereof in contact with the second bar (see the annotated Figure 3 below).”
PNG
media_image1.png
606
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Doyle further discloses “a printing machine (Figure 2) comprising the print head of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above).” Regarding claim 12, Doyle further discloses “comprising a squeegee module (item 36), wherein the squeegee comprises a squeegee blade (see blade extending from item 38 in Figure 3) mounted to a mounting block (item 38), and wherein the mounting block comprises a projection extending therefrom which engages with the clamp (see the circular, grooved heads extending from item 38 in Figure 3).” Regarding claim 13, Doyle further discloses “wherein the projection comprises a shaft projecting from the mounting block (see the shaft portion of the projections in between item 38 and the circular grooved projections) and a head at the distal end of the shaft which is wider than the shaft (see the circular, grooved head portion in Figure 3), and wherein, in the clamping configuration, the first bar contacts the mounting block and the second bar contacts the head (Figure 3).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 12/09/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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 (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights