DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the relaxed position” lacks antecedent basis. 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.
Claim 30 is 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. The claim recites a relaxed position, but up until that point, only a “down position” has been recited as corresponding position when no electrical signal is applied. It is unclear whether the claimed relaxed and down positions are intended to refer to the same position. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 15-17, 30, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberherdt et al. (2003/0222236) in view of Frisch et al. (5,343,894) and official notice.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Eberhardt teaches a micro-valve system and printhead comprising:
a orifice plate (fig. 7, item 11A) including a nozzle (fig. 7, item 45);
a fluid plenum (col. 7, item 3) configured to have an internal pressure that is higher than an outside pressure during operation ([0034]); and
a cantilevered beam (fig. 7, item 7) coupled in spaced relation to the orifice plate (see fig. 7) and moveable between positions where the orifice plate is closed and opened by the cantilevered beam (fig. 7, note arrow 47), wherein:
the cantilevered beam is comprised of one or more piezoelectric layers ([0019]),
the cantilevered beam is configured to move to an up position (fig. 7, position spaced away from valve seat 44) that opens the nozzle and thereby causes fluid to flow around an end of the cantilevered beam, straight through the nozzle out of the nozzle (see fig. 7),
wherein the nozzle has a linear flow path without bends along its entire length or wherein the cantilevered beam is bent toward the orifice plate in the down position and no mechanical force external to the cantilevered beam is applied to the cantilevered beam (see fig. 7, Note linear flow path of nozzle 45. Note that beam is bent toward valve seat 44 is the down position. Note that no external mechanical force is applied to the beam), wherein
a volume of a drop of fluid that is ejected from the nozzle is a function off an amount of time that the nozzle is open (Note that this limitation is necessarily met).
Eberhardt generally contemplates that either the open or closed states can be attained by applying an electrical signal to the piezoelectric element, but Eberhardt does not expressly disclose causing the open state when one or more electrical signals are applied to the one or more piezoelectric layers of the cantilevered beam or the cantilevered beam is configured to have a mechanical bias so that the cantilevered beam is in a down position that closes the nozzle by force of the mechanical bias when no electrical signal is applied. Examiner takes official notice that it that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to position Eberhardt’s piezoelectric valve in a normally-closed state so that no electrical signal was applied when the valve 45 was closed, and an electrical signal would only be applied to open the valve and move the piezoelectric beam away from the orifice plate.
Alternatively, Frisch teaches wherein a piezoelectric valve moves from the closed to the open state upon application of an electrical signal and remains in the closed state, bent toward a nozzle, when no signal is applied (Frisch, see figs. 1, 2, col. 3, lines 14-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the default position, when no electrical signal is provided, of Ebehardt’s valve a closed position, as disclosed by Frisch, because doing so would amount to a simple application of a default piezoelectric valve positioning to a known valve type to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice teaches the micro-valve system and printhead of claims 1 and 15, respectively, wherein the cantilevered beam at a proximal end of the cantilevered beam is coupled to the orifice plate and the cantilevered beam at a distal end of the cantilevered beam is moveable between positions where the nozzle is closed and opened (Eberhardt, see fig. 7, Note that, as defined above, all limitations are met).
Regarding claim 16, Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice teaches the printhead of claim 15,
wherein at least one cantilevered beam includes a pair of piezoelectric layers (Eberhardt, [0019])) that are spaced from each other and spaced from the orifice plate (Eberhardt, see fig. 7, Note that the piezoelectric layers of the cantilevered beam are necessarily spaced from each other),
wherein the cantilevered beam is responsive to application of a first electrical signal to one of the pair of piezoelectric layers to bend from the starting position adjacent the orifice plate away from the orifice plate and termination of the first electrical signal and application of a second electrical signal to the other of the pair of piezoelectric layers to return back to the starting position adjacent the orifice plate (Eberhardt, [0024], Note that the claimed limitation is just how such a piezoelectric transducer normally works).
Regarding claim 28, Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice teaches the printhead of claim 1, wherein the cantilevered beam comprises a plurality of layers (Eberhardt, [0019], Frisch, col. 3, lines 14-17), wherein the mechanical bias is provided based on at least one of the plurality of layers being in a stressed state (Frisch, col. 2, lines 24-50).
Regarding claim 30, Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice teaches the printhead of claim 1, wherein the cantilevered beam is mechanically biased toward the orifice plate when in the relaxed position that occurs when the one or more electrical signals are not applied (Eberhardt, [0024], Frisch, col. 2, lines 24-50).
Regarding claim 31, Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice teaches the printhead of claim 1, wherein the cantilevered beam is mechanically biased toward the orifice plate when the fluid plenum is empty (Eberhardt, [0024], Frisch, col. 2, lines 24-50, Note that the beam is always biased toward the orifice plate when no signal is applied. It is not exactly clear how the amount of fluid in the plenum would impact whether the valve was in an open or closed position).
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marcus (2011/0073788).
Regarding claim 10, Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice teaches the micro-valve system of claim 1. Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice does not teach a plurality of nozzles. Marcus teaches
a plurality of nozzles (Marcus, [0008], note that a nozzle array is discussed) in the orifice plate (Marcus, [0008]); and
a plurality of the cantilevered beams disposed in spaced relation to the orifice plate,
wherein each cantilevered beam is moveable between positions where one of the plurality of nozzles is closed and opened by said cantilevered beam (Marcus, [0008], note that a nozzle array is discussed and that printing would require selective activation of beams). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the piezoelectric valve structure and operation disclosed by Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice to a plurality of nozzles, as disclosed by Marcus, because doing so would amount to combining a known nozzle plurality structure with a known type of valve to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Eberhardt in view of Frisch, official notice and Marcus teaches the micro-valve system and printhead of claims 10 and 17, respectively, wherein the plurality of cantilevered beams is arranged side-by-side, interdigitated, or in an x, y array (Marcus, [0008], Note that a “nozzle array” would require that the beams be side-by-side or interdigitated).
Claim(s) 29 and 32-36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoki et al. (2009/0091215).
Regarding claims 29 and 32-36, Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice does not teach specific layers and frequencies. Aoki teaches a cantilevered piezoelectric transducer with an oxide layer, a zirconium oxide barrier layer, wherein a thickness of one of the piezoelectric layers dictates a bending characteristic of the cantilevered beam and wherein the piezoelectric actuator is operated at a frequency greater than 10 kHz (Aoki, [0016], [0115]-[0117], Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a piezoelectric structure of the type disclose by Aoki in the device disclosed by Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice because doing so would amount to combining a known piezoelectric actuator structure with a known piezoelectric valve structure to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Eberhardt in view of Frisch and official notice does not go into much detail about the exact materials and layer structure of its cantilevered beam, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to look to Aoki for such specifics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights