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 of Group I (claims 21-37) in the reply filed on 08/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 38-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, claim(s) 21-37 is/are examined herein.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 016198746 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Russell (US 2008/0042321 - of record).
Regarding claim 21, Nishikawa teaches a system for three-dimensional inkjet printing (Abstract; claim 1), comprising:
a rotary tray (turntable (16)) configured to rotate about a vertical axis (see Fig. 1; [0012] and [0016] of English Machine Translation attached);
a printing block (movable scanning table (18)) mounted with printing head (17) .., having a plurality of nozzles, said printing block being configured to reciprocally move relative to said tray along a radial direction (see Figs. 1-3; [0012] and [0021] of English Machine Translation attached);
a radiation source mounted with an angular separation from said printing block (see Fig. 4; [0039-0042] of English Machine Translation attached); and
Nishikawa does not explicitly teach the printing head are printing heads, each having a plurality of nozzles.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing devices, Russell teaches a system (10) for three-dimensional printing (see Fig. 1; [0026]), comprising a rotary tray (rotary build drum (12)) configured to rotate about a vertical axis (see Fig. 1); a printing block mounted with printing with a plurality of printing heads (48), each having a plurality of nozzles (304), and being configured to reciprocally move relative to said tray along a radial direction and continuously printing radially about a circular and/or rotating build table using multiple printheads. (see Fig. 3; [0048], [0055-0057] and [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Nishikawa in view of Russell with the printing head are printing heads, each having a plurality of nozzles as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Russell above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would achieve a high throughput by continuously printing, using multiple printheads (see [0006] of Russell).
Nishikawa in view of Russell further teaches a controller configured for controlling said printing heads to dispense, during said rotation of said tray and during said reciprocal motion of said printing block, droplets of building material in layers, so as to print a three-dimensional object on said tray (i.e. a
means for receiving a slice plan view, a scanning signal conversion circuit for converting the slice plane view signal into a signal string matched with a dot position determined by a structure of a liquid droplet ejecting head, a head drive circuit that operates by receiving the conversion signal, a liquid droplet ejecting head for ejecting a molding liquid droplet in response to the drive signal) (see [0069] of English Machine Translation attached of Nishikawa).
Regarding claim 22, Nishikawa in view of Russell further teaches the system, wherein nozzle arrays of at least two of said printing heads are offset from each other (i.e. multiple printheads (248) are staggered along a length of a printhead carrier (203) and the staggered printheads (248) define the printing swath width (206)) (see Figs. 14A-14D and [0059] of Russell).
Regarding claim 24, Nishikawa in view of Russell further teaches the system, wherein at least two said printing heads (48 and or 248) on said printing block are parallel to each other (see Fig. 8A and Fig. 14C of Russell).
Regarding claims 26-27, Nishikawa in view of Russell further teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above. Nishikawa in view of Russell further does not explicitly teach said angular separation is from about 30° to about 120° and/or said angular separation is about 180°. However, Nishikawa teaches that the radiation source (ultraviolet source (34)) is provided opposite the turntable (16), such that droplets ejected by the printing head (17) are carried by the rotation of the turntable to a location beneath the radiation source, distinct from the location of ejection (see [0039] and [0041] of English Machine Translation attached). Nishikawa disclose a light shielding plate (35) is attached to the movable scanning table (18) supporting the printing head (17), with the radiation source (34) disposed above the light shielding plate (35) such that droplets ejection region must pass through the shielded zone, thereby traversing a defined angular interval of rotation-before reaching the ultraviolet (34) irradiation region (see [0042] of English Machine Translation attached). Nishikawa further teaches that the angular/temporal separation between the ejection location and the irradiation location is a result effective variable. Nishikawa expressly teaching that angular separation between the printing block and ultraviolet source is a variable that must be selected to allow sufficient time for solvent evaporation and droplets setting before curing (see [0042] of English Machine Translation attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routing experimentation, to optimize this angular separation including selecting a value within a range of about 30° to about 120° and/or about 180° in order to achieve a suitable dwell time between dispensing and curing for a given rotational speed, droplet composition, and solvent volatility.
Regarding claim 31, Nishikawa in view of Russell further teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Russell further teaches the swath wherein said controller is configured for controlling said printing heads to dispense said droplets of said building material along non-circular segments (i.e. the swaths print canted to a radius of the build drum and does not trace a simple circular or purely radial path (see Fig. 14A-14D depicting printhead travel path (207) and print stroke (208); [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the controller of Nishikawa as modified by Russell’s radial printhead-carrier reception, is inherently configured to control the printhead(s) to dispense droplets of building material along such canted, non-circular segment, since this swath geometry necessarily results from combination rotating turntable of Nishikawa and Russell’s radially-reciprocating printhead carrier operating simultaneously, exactly as disclosed by Russell. This the predictable result of combining known elements (a rotating tray/turntable and radially -reciprocating multi-nozzle printhead carrier) according to their established functions.
Regarding claim 32, Nishikawa in view of Russell further teaches the system, wherein said reciprocal motion of said printing block (17) is independent of a radial position of said radiation source (34) (Figs. 4-5; [0039] and [0042] of English Machine Translation attached of Nishikawa).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 016198746 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Russell (US 2008/0042321 – of record) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Burr (US 6,113,231).
Regarding claim 23, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Nishikawa in view of Russell does not teach wherein at least two said printing heads on said printing block are at different azimuthal positions.
In analogous art, Burr teaches an apparatus (10) for high speed offset ink jet printing (Abstract; Fig. 1), comprises multiple printheads (12A-12Q) configured for ejecting ink drops onto on a rotating drum (14), wherein at least four of the multiple printheads are positioned at different circumferential locations (azimuthal) about a support surface of the rotating drum in order to increase image density and allow for greater speeds (see Fig. 1; column 4, lines 20-35; claims 6 and 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Nishikawa in view of Burr with at least two said printing heads on said printing block are at different azimuthal positions; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would increase image density and allow for greater speeds (see column 2, lines 26-28 of Burr).
Claim(s) 25 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 016198746 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Russell (US 2008/0042321 - of record) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Bradshaw (US 6,264,295 - of record).
Regarding claim 25, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Nishikawa in view of Russell does not teach, wherein said controller is configured for ensuring that an azimuthal distance between sequentially dispensed droplets varies as a function of a position of said printing block along said radial direction.
In analogous art, Bradshaw teaches a radial printing system (200) configured to radially print onto a media (220) that rotates in relation to a printing head assembly (210) (see Fig. 2; column 1, lines 1-5), wherein the system comprises a controller (servo system (206) integrated within a computer system) configured for controlling movement of the head assembly (210) including the printhead (302) that dispensing dot on a rotatable platter (201)) (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 25-35 and column 10, lines 53-54); and an imaging system (202) coupled to the controller (206) and represents a mechanism for controlling when the head assembly (210) initiates and terminates printing a particular dot, swath, strip, or pattern that forms part of the image to be reproduced onto the media (220) as the head assembly traverses different areas of the media (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 32-45), wherein the print head is offset from a previous location of the print head during a first rotation which is advantageous when there is a limit to how fast ink may be dispensed for a given rotation speed and further it allows for finer resolution between dots or print areas (see column 17, lines 40-45 and lines 50-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system as taught by Russell in view of Bradshaw with configuring the controller for ensuring that an azimuthal distance between sequentially dispensed droplets varies as a function of a position of said printing block along said radial direction given the discussion of Bradshaw above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so is advantageous when there is a limit to how fast ink may be dispensed for a given rotation speed and further it allows for finer resolution between dots or print areas (see column 17, lines 40-45 and lines 50-52 of Bradshaw) and also in order to reduce printing distortion that arises from matching the image points with respective ones of the ink dispensement areas and/or from a rotational motion of the rotating media (see column 3, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 37, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Nishikawa in view of Russell does not teach, wherein said controller is configured to control said printing heads to dispense droplets such that an azimuthal distance between sequentially dispensed droplets varies as a function of said radial position.
In analogous art, Bradshaw teaches a radial printing system (200) configured to radially print onto a media (220) that rotates in relation to a printing head assembly (210) (see Fig. 2; column 1, lines 1-5), an imaging system (202) coupled to a controller (206) and configured to select polar (angular) print points such that “the first portion of polar points are selected to have a higher angular resolution than the second portion points corresponding to a different radius (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; column 6, lines 32-45 and claim 2). Bradshaw further discloses that firing delay/timing may be changed at constant rate as dot are printed a long radius or a nozzle firing delay may be chosen for inner dots to compensate for the varying linear velocity of the rotating media at different radius, thereby varying the effective azimuthal spacing between sequentially dispensed ink droplets as a function of radial position (see column 18,1-25 and lines 29-42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize controller is configured to control said printing heads to dispense droplets such that an azimuthal distance between sequentially dispensed droplets varies as a function of said radial position as such is known in the art of additive manufacturing given the discussion of Bradshaw above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so allows for compensating for the varying linear velocity across the tray’s radius and thereby achieve more uniform dot/material density and reduce twisting type distortion (as recognized by Bradshaw at column 18, lines 7-15).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 016198746 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Russell (US 2008/0042321 – of record) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Marson (US 2007/0154823).
Regarding claim 28, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Nishikawa in view of Russell does not teach, wherein at least two radiation emitting elements within said radiation source are characterized by different emission powers.
In analogous art, Marson teaches a system that provides multi-attribute light effects for curing and drying of printing ink (see Abstract; [0003]), wherein the system comprises a light source includes an array of solid state light emitters (e.g., LEDs) in which various Led array sources can be combined operating at different power levels or wavelengths (see [0007]), wherein the light source comprising two or more channels, each channel comprising a respective array of light emitters, the channels being combinable within a single light source unit to provide muti-attribute light effects tailored to the curing requirement of different zones of a target object (Abstract; [0009],[0018] ,[0046] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Nishikawa and Russell in view of Marson with at least two radiation emitting elements within said radiation source are characterized by different emission powers as such is known in the art of devices for curing of printing object given the discussion of Marson above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would tailor the curing energy delivered to different zone of the dispensed materials, reduce unnecessarily energy consumption, and extend the operation life time of the radiating emitting elements (see [0009] and [0017] of Marson).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 016198746 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Russell (US 2008/0042321 – of record) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2013/0070035).
Regarding claim 29, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Nishikawa in view of Russell does not explicitly teach, wherein all radiation emitting elements within said radiation source are characterized by the same emission power, and wherein said controller is configured to individually control each radiation emitting element or each group of radiation emitting elements to emit radiation at a different power.
In analogous art, Yang teaches a system a light source for a photo-reactive curing apparatus comprising a plurality of light source elements (LED array) within a single lamp (see Fig. 1; [0015] and [0026-0028]), wherein the light source elements are individually addressable such that a controller configured to control power of individual lamps, or group of light sources (LEDs 320a,320b,320c), to control the beam profile accordingly (see Figs. 9-11; [0026-0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Nishikawa and Russell in view of Yang with all radiation emitting elements within said radiation source are characterized by the same emission power, and wherein said controller is configured to individually control each radiation emitting element or each group of radiation emitting elements to emit radiation at a different power as such is known in the art of devices for curing of printing object given the discussion of Yang above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would compensate for variation in curing requirements across the printed pattern and also to control the location and extent of curing relative to the angularly separated printing block, consistent with Yang’s own teaching that individual/group control of LED array elements enables of adjustment of the beam profile for curing application (see [0024-0031] of Yang).
Claim(s) 30 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 016198746 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Russell (US 2008/0042321 – of record) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Gothait (US 6,259,962).
Regarding claim 30, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system, wherein the controller configured for controlling the printing head to dispense droplets during rotation of the tray and reciprocal (radial) motion of the printing block as set forth above in claim 21.
Nishikawa further teaches means for receiving a slice plane signal and arc scanning signal conversion means for converting the slice plane signal into a signal string a long arc-shape scanning trajectory based on the rotation of the turntable (i.e. demonstrating the controller capable of adjusting the printing data) in response to the relative motion between the printing head and the rotary tray (see [0069-0070] of English Machine Translation attached). However, Nishikawa in view of Russell does not explicitly teach a host computer communicating with said controller.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, Gothait teaches a three-dimensional printing system comprising a printing head (12) having a plurality of nozzles (Abstract; Fig. 1) , a process controller (24) coupled to the printing head, and a computer aided design (CAD) system (26) coupled to the process controller (see Figs. 5A-5B; column 4, lines 38-55; column 5, lines 38-60), wherein a file of the model to be produced is downloaded to the CAD system, and operational parameters including printhead resolution (dot per inch) and spacing between consecutive ink-dot lines are selected via CAD system for use by the process controller in dispensing droplets to build the three dimensional object (column 5, lines 38-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Nishikawa and Russell in view of Gothait with a host computer communicating with said controller and being configured to adjust printing data responsively to said reciprocal motion of said printing block as such is known in the art of devices for curing of printing object given the discussion of Gothait above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would adjust the timing or density of droplets ejection instructions to compensate for printhead’s changing radial position and corresponding canted /varying print geometry.
Regarding claim 36, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Nishikawa in view of Russell does not teach, wherein different nozzles dispense said building material at different dispensing rates.
In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, Gothait teaches a three-dimensional printing system comprising a printing head (12) having a plurality of nozzles (Abstract; Fig. 1), wherein different nozzles dispense said building material at different dispensing rates (see Fig. 8 steps 306-308; column 7, lines 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Nishikawa and Russell in view of Gothait with different nozzles dispense said building material at different dispensing rates as such is known in the art of 3D printing devices given the discussion of Gothait above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would correct for manufacturing variance between nozzles and achieve uniform layer thickness (Abstract of Gothait) .
Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (JP 016198746 with English Machine Translation attached) in view of Russell (US 2008/0042321 – of record) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Dudley (US 2014/0265034).
Regarding claim 33, Nishikawa in view of Russell teaches the system as discussed in claim 21 above.
Nishikawa further teaches at least one of said tray (16) and said printing block (17) is configured to move along a vertical direction parallel to said vertical axis so as to vary a vertical distance between said tray and said printing block (see Figs. 1-3; [0013-0014] and [0017] of English Machine Translation attached). Nishikawa does not explicitly teach wherein said controller is configured to continue said dispensing during said motion along said vertical direction. In the same field of endeavor, 3D printing systems, Dudley teaches 3D printer (10) comprises a z-axis elevator stage (14), a build platform (16), a controller configured to continuously dispensing/depositing of building material while the build material is simultaneously undergoing vertical (Z-axis) motion (see Fig. 1; [0016-0019], [0056], [0058] and [0073-0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the apparatus as taught by Nishikawa and Russell in view of Dudley with said controller is configured to continue said dispensing during said motion along said vertical direction as such is known in the art of 3D printing systems given the discussion of Dudley above; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, with the added benefits of doing so would improve layer to layer bonding and reduced susceptibility to delamination or failed structures compared to conventional discrete stepwise layer-by-layer building (see [0013],[0091] and [0093] of Dudley).
Regarding claim 34, Nishikawa and Russell in view of Dudley further teaches the system, wherein said motion along said vertical direction is executed such that said tray (18) and said printing block experience at least 3 two different vertical distances therebetween during a single rotation of said tray (i.e. the tray and printing/curing location pass through multiple distinct vertical distance during a single rotation, not merely one distance per revolution) (see Fig. 1; [0067] and [0069] of Dudley)
Regarding claim 35, Nishikawa and Russell in view of Dudley further teaches the system, wherein said motion along said vertical direction is executed such that during a single rotation of said tray, said vertical distance is increased by an amount that approximately equals a characteristic thickness of a single layer of said building material (i.e. as the assembled build platform 16, 18 rotates, it is continually raised by the linear actuators in a ratio such that the assembled platform 16, 18 is raised one layer height for each revolution; and one layer height corresponds to the number of radii of an intended curing piece of the structure) (see [0069] of Dudley).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 23 and 37 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,897,186.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to claim 1, US 11,897,186 claims, in claim 1 a system for three-dimensional inkjet printing, comprising: a rotary tray configured to rotate about a vertical axis (US11,897,186 at claim 1, line 59) ; a printing block mounted with printing heads, each having a plurality of nozzles (US11,897,186 at claim 1, lines 61-63), said printing block being configured to reciprocally move relative to said tray along a radial direction(US 11,897,186 at claim 1, line 63); a radiation source mounted with an angular separation from said printing block (US 11,897,186 at claim 2, lines 5-10 and claim 3, lies 8-10); and a controller configured for controlling said printing heads to dispense, during said rotation of said tray and during said reciprocal motion of said printing block, droplets of building material in layers, so as to print a three-dimensional object on said tray (US 11,897,186 at claim 1, line 64-67).
As to claim 23, US 11,897,186 claims, in claim 6 the system, wherein at least two of said printing heads on said printing block are at different azimuthal positions (US 11,897,186 at claim 5, lines 15-18).
As to claim 37, US 11,897,186 claims, in claim 6 the system, wherein said controller is configured to control said printing heads to dispense droplets such that an azimuthal distance between sequentially dispensed droplets varies as a function of said radial position (US 11,897,186 at claim 5, lines 15-18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AHMED ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM-7:30 PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/MOHAMED K AHMED ALI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights