DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant traverses the withdraw of claims 2 and 7-11 from examination because they were previously examined. According to Applicant, the inventions according to claims 1 and 2 are the same. Examiner maintains that the inventions are patentably distinct and properly restricted. While the claims were similar, each contained patentably distinct language not required by the other. Claim 2 contained language requiring actuation pulses to decrease flow in a gradual way, which was not required by claim 1. Further, in amending independent claim 1 and not amending independent claim 2 in the claims submitted 7/31/2023, claims 1 and 2 were effectively made patentably distinct subcombination and combination, respectively. The Requirement is maintained.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (2011/0211027) in view of Hara (2011/0304670) and Shibata et al. (2010/0328385).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata teaches a method for cleaning and ink jet imaging device, the method comprising the steps of:
b) actuating a first ink channel (figs. 1, 2, ink channel 7/17/8/18a/9/18b) actuated by shortest piezoelectric element 4) by applying a first actuation pulse ([0052]-[0053]) to a first actuator (figs. 1, 2, shortest piezoelectric element 4) to provide a pressure wave in the first ink channel (see fig. 2, note that pressure chamber expands and contracts due to flexing of the elastic plate 5. Note that the pressure wave is being defined as when the pressure chamber expands so during a non-ejection period),
wherein the first actuation pulse comprises an electrical signal that is applied to the first actuator and creates a pressure wave in the first ink channel, wherein a frequency of the pressure wave is in a range of between 0.5 and 1.5 times the natural resonance frequency of the first ink channel ([0017], note that each piezoelectric actuator operates at exactly the natural resonance frequency of each ink channel 9).
wherein each of the first and second ink channels has a different natural resonance frequency, which is equal to a respective actuation frequency at which ejected droplets have a maximum speed/velocity (see figs. 1, 2, note that any two channels of any different lengths necessarily have different natural resonance frequencies, and as defined above, the first ink channel and the second ink channel have different lengths and therefore different natural resonance frequencies)
Miyata does not teach a) purging ink through the first and second nozzle by applying a purging pressure on the entrance side of the main ink supply channel which creates a first local pressure in the first ink channel and a second local pressure in the second ink channel b) simultaneously to step a). Hara teaches such a purging (Hara, compare figs. 2, 3, Note that a first and second nozzle 25a are aligned in an array along bottom of head 22k. Note that pressure is applied by pump 53 on the entrance side of head generally indicated by numeral 22 during the purging operation shown, and note that actuation of a first nozzle is executed simultaneous to the application of pressure from the pump). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a purge capability of the type disclosed by Hara to the device by Miyata because doing so would allow for refreshing of the nozzles and evacuation of thickened ink from the head. Upon combination of the references, a supply pump would pump ink into Miyata’s supply route 7 while the actuator corresponding to Miyata’s first ink channel was driven into alternating expansion/contraction states to eject ink, during such contraction states lowering the pressure in the first ink channel and counteracting local pressure such that flow through the first ink channel was reduced momentarily during such an expansion state.
Upon combination of Hara with Miyata, the resultant device would have a pressure wave creating a fluidic opposition counteracting the first local pressure in the first ink channel and reducing an ink flow caused by the purging pressure through the first ink channel during purging. That is, while executing the purging taught by Hara, the first ink channel disclosed by Miyata would be actuated so that the pressure chamber would expand, thereby counteracting the purging pressure with the expansion of the pressure chamber.
Further, the language “and directing more ink flow through the second ink channel than would flow through the second ink channel during the purge without actuation of the first ink channel” could mean any number of things. Because the general structure of Miyata’s printhead and that disclosed in the figures of the present application are the same, and Miyata in view of Hara teaches the claimed limitations above, it is presumed Miyata and Hara’s device would work in the same manner as that claimed. That is, because all structural and functional limitations have been met, without any further structural or functional differentiation, it can only be concluded that the prior art device functions in the same manner.
Miyata in view of Hara does not teach wherein the first ink channel is actuated while the second ink channel is not actuated. Shibata teaches wherein preliminary ejection of ink from nozzles of a printhead is executed at different timings for even numbered nozzles and odd numbered nozzles (Shibata, [0067]-[0068], Note that any actuator being actuated can be said to be a first actuator, and any actuator not being actuated can be said to be a second actuator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the preliminary ejection scheme disclosed by Shibata to the device disclosed by Miyata in view of Hara because doing so would allow for different flushing frequencies for different nozzles, thereby facilitating the avoidance of unwanted variations in printing density (Shibata, [0010]).
Upon application of Shibata’s density variation prevention technique to the device of Miyata in view of Hara, the any even ink channel could be said to be a first ink channel, and any odd ink channel could be said to be a second ink channel, and as long as L2>L1, the limitation would be met. It should be noted that Examiner understands that Shibata’s teaching is not directed to the same problem sought to be addressed by the claimed invention. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of skill to combine the teaching of Shibata with the method of Miyata in view of Hara, and upon combination, all claimed limitations would be met.
Regarding claim 3, Miyata in view of Hara and Shibata teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the actuator is piezoelectric (Miyata, [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Miyata in view of Hara and Shibata teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first actuation pulse is selected to provide a first pressure wave in the first ink channel, the first pressure wave having a frequency in a range of between 0.5 and 1.5 times the natural resonance frequency of the first ink channel (Miyata, [0052]-[0053]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in view of Hara and Shibata as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shibata (2020/0101743).
Regarding claim 4, Miyata in view of Hara and Shibata teaches the method of claim 1. Miyata in view of Hara and Shibata does not teach two entry sides. Shibata teaches this (Shibata, see fig. 6A, Note two entry sides connected to pumps P1 and P2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use two entry sides, as disclose by Shibata, instead of the one disclosed by Miyata in view of Hara because doing so would allow for better ink circulation as well as facilitating more forceful expulsion of contaminants from the ink chambers during purging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Miyata does not teach a maintenance method. First, the term “maintenance method” is not included in the body of the claim and thus has not been given patentable weight. Moreover, even if the term was included in the body of the claim, simply stating that a method of operating a printhead is a “maintenance” method could mean any number of things.
Applicant proceeds to argue Examiner has conflated the length of the Mechanical actuators with lengths of fluidic ink paths. This is incorrect. As explained and illustrated in the Advisory action dated 7/10/2025, Miyata has been interpreted in the following way:
PNG
media_image1.png
608
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Miyata teaches different-lengthed vibrators, not different-lengthed channels. Examiner maintains that this is incorrect. As detailed in the standing rejection, the channels, as defined in the rejection, are indeed different lengths. Further, during examination, Examiner has looked to Figures 1A-1C to ascertain exactly what the structure of the claimed device is, but those Figures are fairly non-descriptive. Thus, without more specific visual description, Examiner has been left to assert Miyata’s channel as analogous to that claimed. Examiner maintains Miyata teaches channels of different lengths, as detailed above. See attached illustration for more on relative flow path lengths.
Applicant further contends the pressure reduction that results from the expansion state of Miyata’s pressure chamber does not read on the claimed pressure wave at the claimed resonance frequency range. Examiner disagrees. Miyata discloses this at paragraphs [0017], [0051], [0052]. While Miyata may not expressly state that the actuators create pressure waves at their corresponding resonance frequencies, the entire disclosure is directed to actuators that are tuned to specific resonance frequencies.
Further, it should be noted that it is not clear how a pressure wave of a liquid would have a natural resonance frequency corresponding to a natural resonance frequency of a channel. That is, it is not clear how the frequency of a vibration of a liquid would correspond with a resonance frequency of a hard component such as a channel.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to apply the maintenance method of Hara to the printhead disclosed by Miyata, Examiner maintains the position. It is true that every printhead requires maintenance, and thus to apply Hara’s technique to the device of Miyata would have been obvious, and the resultant device would meet the limitations as detailed. Simply because the references have not been combined to achieve the goal of the claimed invention does not make the combination any less proper.
Applicant further argues that Miyata does not have anything to do with reducing ink flow during purging by actuation, but the rejection does not so assert. Hara is teaches a purging operation by actuation that, when applied to Miyata, would meet claimed limitations during purging by actuation. According to Applicant, it would not make sense to combine Hara with Miyata because Hara is directed to a maintenance method while Miyata is directed to preventing crosstalk among vibrators during printing. Miyata has been incorporated as a reference for a teaching of a structure of a printhead. Any printhead, including that with a structure like Miyata’s, would be properly combinable with a purging operation because all printheads require cleaning.
Applicant points out a number of differences between the prior art and the claimed invention seeking to highlight why the claimed invention is not unpatentable over the art, and while those differences are appreciated, the fact remains that the prior art combination is proper, and the prior art combination meets all of the claimed limitations.
Miyata teaches a general structure of a printhead. Hara teaches a purging operation for a printhead. Shibata teaches a specific kind of purging operation wherein specific nozzles are purged at a given time and other specific nozzles are not. It would been obvious to apply the purging operation of Hara to the head structure of Miyata because doing so would refresh the nozzles of the head. It would have been obvious to apply the specific purging operation disclosed by Shibata during the purging operation of Miyata in view of Hara because doing so would provide for effective purging of the nozzles. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, DOUGLAS X. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853