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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
With regards to applicant’s amendment reciting “a positioner configured to move the oscillator…”, the examiner agrees that the positioner of Camillo does not meet this limitation. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of Quintero et al.
With regards to applicant’s amendment reciting “the nozzle hole is positioned at a depth of 70% or more with respect to a depth of the recessed portion,” this limitation is an example of functional language describing the intended use of the device. The rection of amended independent claim 8 has been updated to address this limitation with the appropriate patentable weight, in light of the structural features recited in the apparatus.
With regards to applicant’s comments regarding the rejection of claim 12, applicant’s arguments are not found to be convincing. Firstly, the rejection made by the examiner cites [0108], not [0128]. The applicant relies on [0058] as teaching the relationship of claim 12. The examiner acknowledges support in the specification for the relationship claimed in claim 12.
However, the specification filed 30 August 2022 clearly states, “when the outer shape of the planar portion of the film-like member is circular and the liquid chamber member is a cylindrical member, the inner diameter of the end portion of the liquid chamber member on the side where the elastic member is disposed […] is smaller than the diameter of the planar portion of the film-like member…” Emphasis has been added by the examiner, and the parenthetical labels have been removed.
The reversal of the relationship is clear in comparison with claim 12, which recites “a diameter of the planar portion of the film-like member is smaller than an inner diameter of an end portion of the liquid chamber member on a side where the elastic member is disposed.”
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 as an obvious change in size or proportion is maintained.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 03 March 2026 have been entered. Applicant's remarks filed 03 March 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 17 are in status “Currently amended.” Claims 10 – 16 and 18 – 20 are in status “Original” or “Previously presented.” Claims 21 – 27 are in status “New.” Claims 1 – 7 and 9 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “cells of human origin” encompasses a human organism. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 – 27 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the recessed portion" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the limitation “a recessed portion” is not introduced until line 15. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “the nozzle hole is positioned at a depth of 70% or more with respect to a depth of a recessed portion provided in a container.”
Claims 10- 27 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependence on claim 8.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the adjustment member" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the adjustment member” to mean “the adjuster.”
Claim 27 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependent on claim 26.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the adjustment member” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the adjustment member” to mean “the adjuster.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 8, 10, 15, 16, and 21 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 20160175834 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 30 August 2022) in view of Quintero et al (Quintero C, Rosenstein C, Hughes B, Middleton R, Kariv I. “Quality Control Procedures for Dose-Response Curve Generation Using Nanoliter Dispense Technologies.” Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12(6); 2007).
With regards to claim 8, Seo et al teaches;
The claimed "A liquid droplet discharging apparatus" has been read on the taught (Abstract, "A droplet forming apparatus…");
The claimed "a discharge head configured to discharge a liquid droplet" has been read on the taught ([0026], "A droplet forming apparatus of a first embodiment is described.");
The claimed "wherein the discharge head includes an oscillator including a film-like member including a nozzle hole" has been read on the taught ([0026], "With reference to FIG. 1, the droplet forming apparatus 10 includes a liquid chamber 11, a membrane 12 and a piezoelectric element 13."; [0029], "… The membrane 12 is provided with a nozzle 121…"; Membrane 12 reads on an oscillator including a film-like member. Nozzle 121 reads on a nozzle hole.);
The claimed "wherein the discharge head includes an oscillator including a film-like member including a nozzle hole" has been read on the taught ([0026], "With reference to FIG. 1, the droplet forming apparatus 10 includes a liquid chamber 11, a membrane 12 and a piezoelectric element 13."; [0029], "… The membrane 12 is provided with a nozzle 121…"; Membrane 12 reads on an oscillator including a film-like member. Nozzle 121 reads on a nozzle hole.);
The claimed "wherein the discharge head includes […] a support member configured to support the film-like member" has been read on the taught (Figure 1, liquid chamber 11; [0029], "The membrane 12 is a membrane member that is fixed at a lower end portion of the liquid chamber 11."; Lower end portion of the liquid chamber 11 reads on a discharge head. Annotated Figure 1 reproduced on page 5 shows membrane 12 attached to the lower end of the wall of liquid chamber 11.);
The claimed "wherein the discharge head includes […] an exciter disposed on a part of the film-like member and on a part of the support member and configured to oscillate the film-like member" has been read on the taught ([0026], "With reference to FIG. 1, the droplet forming apparatus 10 includes a liquid chamber 11, a membrane 12 and a piezoelectric element 13."; [0036], "When an electric voltage is applied to the upper and lower electrodes of the piezoelectric element 13, a compression stress is applied in a lateral direction of the plane of paper, and thereby the membrane 12 vibrates in a vertical direction of the plane of paper."; Piezoelectric element 13 reads on an exciter.);
The claimed "wherein the discharge head includes […] a liquid chamber member bonded to the oscillator and configured to hold a liquid, wherein the oscillator is bonded to an end portion of the liquid chamber member that extends along a direction in which the liquid droplet is discharged" has been read on the taught ([0026], "With reference to FIG. 1, the droplet forming apparatus 10 includes a liquid chamber 11, a membrane 12 and a piezoelectric element 13."; [0029], "The membrane 12 is a membrane member fixed to the lower end of the liquid chamber 11."; See also annotated figure 1 reproduced on page 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation of “the nozzle hole is positioned at a depth of 70% or more with respect to a depth of the recessed portion” is functional language and has been given the appropriate patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114(II), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The structural limitations regarding positioning the nozzle hole are associated with “a positioner configured to move the oscillator to position the oscillator inside a recessed portion provided in a container, and the recessed portion is a container in which the discharged liquid droplet is placed.” For the purposes of examination, and in the interest of compact prosecution given the applicant’s remarks, the examiner interprets the limitation regarding the nozzle depth to mean “the positioner is capable of positioning the nozzle hole at a depth of 70% or more with respect to a depth of the recessed portion.”
Seo et al does not explicitly disclose a positioner configured to move the oscillator to position the oscillator inside a recessed portion provided in a container, the recessed portion is a container in which the discharged liquid droplet is placed, and the positioner is capable of positioning the nozzle hole at a depth of 70% or more with respect to a depth of the recessed portion.
In the analogous art of robotic low-volume pipetting techniques, Quintero et al teaches;
“A positioner configured to move the oscillator to position the oscillator inside a recessed portion provided in a container, the recessed portion is a container in which the discharged liquid droplet is placed, and the positioner is capable of positioning the nozzle hole at a depth of 70% or more with respect to a depth of the recessed portion” has been read on the taught (Page 894, paragraph 2, “The BioMek FX® instrument allows for a predefined volume loaded within a well, which permits for any Z-height from the bottom or top of the well or from liquid level. 9… For the experiments on the PlateMate 2 × 2®, mixing heights were set at the […] dispense height (1/3 of the well height below the well top)…”; 1/3 of the well height below the well top reads on at least 70% of a depth.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the droplet discharging apparatus as taught by Seo et al with the nozzle and recessed plate as taught by Quintero et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Seo et al contains a “base” device of a droplet dispensing device, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Quintero et al teaches a “comparable” device which includes a positioner configured to dispense fluid into a recessed portion provided in a container. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of a positioner and nozzle as taught by Quintero et al in the same way to the device of Seo et al, for the predictable result of depositing droplets into a well with controlled agitation or mixing.
With regards to claim 10, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
The new limitation of the apparatus “wherein the oscillator is integrally molded by a semiconductor process” is an example of a product-by-process claim. According to MPEP 2113(I), “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” Please see In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
MPEP 2113(I) additionally states, “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.”
In the case of the instant application, the limitation of an oscillator “integrally molded by a semiconductor process” does not imply any structure to the oscillator beyond the possible inclusion of semiconductive components. The specification of the instant application does not teach any additional structural characteristics or desired features resulting from the oscillator being integrally molded by a semiconductor process.
Accordingly, the limitation of claim 10 does not distinguish the claimed invention over the apparatus of claim 8 obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al, which includes an oscillator with a piezoelectric component which could be integrally molded by a semiconductor process.
With regards to claim 15, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed "wherein the liquid is a suspension including a cell" has been read on the taught ([0026], "…particle suspension liquid 300 including precipitated particles 350 is retained in the liquid chamber 11."; [0043], "As the precipitated particles 350, […] cells, in particular human cells or the like are assumed.").
With regards to claim 16, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed "wherein the exciter includes a piezoelectric element" has been read on the taught ([0035], "The piezoelectric element 13 is formed on the lower face of the membrane 12.").
With regards to claim 21, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
The limitation of “the nozzle hole is positioned at a height within a range of 0.5mm to 3.0mm from a bottom portion of the recessed portion” is functional language and has been given the appropriate patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114(II), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As Seo et al in view of Quintero et al teaches all of the structural limitations of the apparatus as defined in claim 8, and as the combined reference in view of Quintero et al teaches a positioner which allows any Z-height from the bottom or top of a well (see citation in claim 8), this additional limitation does not define the instant application over the prior art.
With regards to claim 22, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “an atmospheric opening part configured to open an liquid chamber of the discharge head to atmosphere so as to allow air bubbles mixed into the liquid to be discharged from the liquid chamber” has been read on the taught ([0028], “The liquid chamber 11 has an atmospheric air open unit 111 for opening the inside of the liquid chamber 11 to the atmospheric air in an upper part of the liquid chamber 11.”
With regards to claim 23, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the suspension includes cells of human origin” has been read on the taught ([0033], “Specifically, because sizes of animal cells, especially human cells are generally about 5 μm to 50 μm, the diameter of the nozzle 121 is preferably 10 μm to 100 μm or more according to cells to be used.”).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 20160175834 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 30 August 2022) in view of Quintero et al (Quintero C, Rosenstein C, Hughes B, Middleton R, Kariv I. “Quality Control Procedures for Dose-Response Curve Generation Using Nanoliter Dispense Technologies.” Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12(6); 2007) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Usui et al (US 20010002136 A1, cited on the 892 filed 22 August 2025).
With regards to claim 11, the apparatus of claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
However, this combination fails to teach wherein the oscillator is bonded to the liquid chamber member via an elastic member.
In the analogous art of piezoelectric droplet generators, Usui et al teaches;
The claimed “oscillator” and “liquid chamber member” have been read on the taught ([0042], “On the upper surface of the base 2 is fixed a vibration plate 4 for separating an ink reservoir and the piezoelectric vibrators 12.”; The piezoelectric vibrators read on an oscillator. The vibration plate for separating an ink reservoir reads on a liquid chamber member.);
The claimed “wherein the oscillator is bonded to the liquid chamber member via an elastic member” has been read on the taught ([0086], “Although a space enabling ink to flow is formed between adjacent piezoelectric element arrays and between the piezoelectric element arrays and the base plate in the above-mentioned embodiment, a bonding agent or resin 162 having low viscosity and high elasticity at the time of solidification […] is injected and solidified in portions except for the free end surfaces of the piezoelectric elements 160 […] so that it is possible to reinforce the mechanical strength of the piezoelectric elements 160 and more ensure the electric insulation of the conductive layers.”); Bonding agent or resin 162 reads on an elastic member.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Seo et al in view of Quintero et al to include the elastic member as taught by Usui et al, for the benefit of reinforcing the mechanical strength of the oscillator ([0086], “Although a space enabling ink to flow is formed between adjacent piezoelectric element arrays and between the piezoelectric element arrays and the base plate in the above-mentioned embodiment, a bonding agent or resin 162 having low viscosity and high elasticity at the time of solidification […] is injected and solidified in portions except for the free end surfaces of the piezoelectric elements 160 […] so that it is possible to reinforce the mechanical strength of the piezoelectric elements 160 and more ensure the electric insulation of the conductive layers.”).
With regards to claim 12, the apparatus of claim 11 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Usui et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein an outer shape of a planar portion of the film-like member is circular” has been read on the taught ([0029], “The plan shape of the membrane 12 may be, for example, a circle, an ellipse shape, a quadrangle (square shape) or the like.”; The plan shape of the membrane being a circle reads on an outer shape of a planar portion of the film-like member being circular.);
While Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid chamber member is a cylindrical member, per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B), changes in shape are not sufficient to distinguish an instant invention over the prior art “absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration” is significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). The instant specification does not disclose any unexpected results occurring from the use of a cylindrical liquid chamber member. Accordingly, claim 12’s recitation that the liquid chamber member is a cylindrical member is not sufficient to distinguish the device over the teaching of Seo et al.
Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the planar portion of the film-like member is smaller than an inner diameter of an end portion of the liquid chamber member on a side where the elastic member is disposed. However, per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), changes in size or proportion are not sufficient to distinguish an instant invention over the prior art provided that “a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device” (See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
The instant specification does not disclose any unexpected results occurring from the use of a planar portion of the film-like member having a diameter which is smaller than an inner diameter of an end portion of the liquid chamber member on a side where the elastic member is disposed. In fact, the instant specification appears to teach away from this limitation, reciting in [0108], “…the inner diameter of the end portion of the liquid chamber member on the side where the elastic member is disposed […] is smaller than the diameter of the planar portion of the film-like member...“ Accordingly, claim 12’s recitation that a diameter of the planar portion of the film-like member is smaller than an inner diameter of an end portion of the liquid chamber member on a side where the elastic member is disposed is not sufficient to distinguish the device over the teaching of Seo et al.
As such, claim 12 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view Usui et al.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 20160175834 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 30 August 2022) in view of Quintero et al (Quintero C, Rosenstein C, Hughes B, Middleton R, Kariv I. “Quality Control Procedures for Dose-Response Curve Generation Using Nanoliter Dispense Technologies.” Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12(6); 2007) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hotomi et al (US 6297577 B1, cited on the 892 filed 22 August 2025).
With regards to claim 13, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the exciter oscillates the film-like member according to a voltage applied to a plurality of electrodes” has been read on the taught ([0037], “The piezoelectric element 13 has a structure in which electrodes for applying voltage are provided at an upper surface and a lower surface of a piezoelectric material, respectively, for example. By applying the voltage to the upper and lower electrodes of the piezoelectric element 13, a compressive stress is generated in a lateral direction of the drawing to oscillate the membrane 12.”).
However, Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein a voltage is applied through a wiring coupled to plurality of electrodes via a conductive adhesive.
In the analogous art of piezoelectric oscillators for droplet generation, Hotomi et al teaches;
Wherein an exciter oscillates “according to a voltage applied through a wiring coupled to a plurality of electrodes via a conductive adhesive” has been read on the taught (Column 17, line 58, “Like the first embodiment, each individual electrode 311, at its rear end, is connected through a wire bonding to a conductive member, the drive IC, a conductive member, and a connector to controller, while the common electrodes 312 are connected to each other through conductive adhesive which bonds piezo-electric member 310 to the second plate 306. This conductive adhesive is further connected to the controller through the wire bonding and connecter.”; The piezo-electric member reads on an exciter. The conductive adhesive being attached to controller and the common electrode reads on a wiring coupled to a plurality of electrodes via a conductive adhesive.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device including an exciter, film-like member, and electrodes as taught by Seo et al in view of Quintero et al with the conductive adhesive and wiring as taught by Hotomi et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Seo et al contains a “base” device of a discharge head including an exciter, an oscillator, and a film-like member. The prior art of Hotomi et al teaches a “comparable” device for droplet ejection including an oscillator and electrodes, which has been improved with the inclusion of a wiring coupled to a plurality of electrodes via a conductive adhesive. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement in the same way to the “base” device, with the predictable result of creating a droplet generator including an oscillator that has secure electrically conductive connections with a plurality of electrodes.
With regards to claim 14, the apparatus according to claim 13 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Hotomi et al.
Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the wiring is accommodated within a housing part formed on an outer surface of the liquid chamber member.
Hotomi et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “a housing part” has been read on the taught (Column 6, line 64, “The ink jet recording device 110 generally includes […] a housing 120…”)
Hotomi et al additionally teaches wherein all components are contained within the housing, as read on Figure 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Seo et al in view Quintero et al and Hotomi et al with the housing as taught by Hotomi et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Seo et al in view of Quintero et al contains a “base” device of a discharge head including an exciter, an oscillator, and a film-like member. The prior art of Hotomi et al teaches a “comparable” device for droplet ejection including an oscillator and electrodes, which has been improved with the inclusion of a housing which contains the components, including electrical components. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement in the same way to the “base” device, with the predictable result of creating a droplet generator which is protected within a housing.
Hotomi et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing part is formed on an outer surface of the liquid chamber member. However, this is held to be mere rearrangement of parts per MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), as the placement of the housing part would not have modified the operation of the device. Please see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Accordingly, the device of claim is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Hotomi et al.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 20160175834 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 30 August 2022) in view of Quintero et al (Quintero C, Rosenstein C, Hughes B, Middleton R, Kariv I. “Quality Control Procedures for Dose-Response Curve Generation Using Nanoliter Dispense Technologies.” Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12(6); 2007) and further in view of Shinkawa et al (US 20080088657 A1, cited on the 892 filed 22 August 2025).
With regards to claim 17, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “a controller configured to control a factor contributing to an oscillation characteristic of the film-like member” has been read on the taught ([0048], “The control unit 510 […] can select a drive waveform for driving the piezoelectric element 13 based on the detection result. The drive unit 520 converts the drive waveform selected by the control unit 510 into a signal that can drive the piezoelectric element 13, and thereby drives the piezoelectric element 13.”; The drive wave form reads on a factor contributing to an oscillation characteristic of the film-like member; [0049] details that the control unit may be used with other sensing devices and computing components.);
However, Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus further comprises a detector configured to detect at least one of a current and a voltage generated by the exciter, and wherein the controller is configured to control a factor contributing to an oscillation characteristic of the film-like member based on at least one of the current and the voltage.
In the analogous art of droplet generating devices, Shinkawa et al teaches;
The claimed “a detector configured to detect at least one of a current and a voltage generated by the exciter” has been read on the taught (Claim 1, “a droplet ejection apparatus comprising: […] a residual vibration detector detecting a residual vibration of an electromotive voltage generated from the actuator after the actuator has been driven by the driving circuit…”);
The claimed “a controller configured to control a factor contributing to an oscillation characteristic of the film-like member based on at least one of the current and the voltage” has been read on the taught ([0371], “By applying a driving voltage waveform between the external electrodes 248 and the internal electrodes 249 by the head driver 33, the layered piezoelectric element 201 undergoes deformation…” Head drive 33, which applies a driving voltage waveform, reads on a controller configured to control a factor based on the voltage.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus including a controller as taught by Seo et al in view of Quintero et al with the controller and detector as taught by Shinkawa et al, for the benefit of detecting the proper ejection of droplets from the device using a method that allows for lowered manufacturing costs and a compact apparatus ([0380], “…the droplet ejection apparatus of this embodiment as described above does not need other parts (for example, optical missing dot detecting device or the like). As a result, not only an ejection failure of the droplets can be detected without increasing the size of the droplet ejection head, but also the manufacturing costs thereof can be reduced.”).
With regards to claim 18, the apparatus of claim 17 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view Shinkawa et al.
Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the voltage is a back electromotive force generated according to deformation of a piezoelectric element included in the exciter.
Shinkawa et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the voltage is a back electromotive force generated according to deformation of a piezoelectric element included in the exciter” has been read on the taught (Claim 1, “a droplet ejection apparatus comprising: […] a residual vibration detector detecting a residual vibration of an electromotive voltage generated from the actuator after the actuator has been driven by the driving circuit…”; the electromotive voltage reads on a back electromotive force.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus including a controller as taught by Seo et al in view of Quintero et al with the controller and detector as taught by Shinkawa et al, for the benefit of detecting the proper ejection of droplets from the device using a method that allows for lowered manufacturing costs and a compact apparatus ([0380], “…the droplet ejection apparatus of this embodiment as described above does not need other parts (for example, optical missing dot detecting device or the like). As a result, not only an ejection failure of the droplets can be detected without increasing the size of the droplet ejection head, but also the manufacturing costs thereof can be reduced.”).
With regards to claim 20, the apparatus according to claim 17 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Shinkawa et al.
Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the oscillation characteristic is an oscillation period.
Shinkawa et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “wherein the oscillation characteristic is an oscillation period” has been read on the taught ([0195], “While the driving/detection switching signal remains in the high level, the oscillation circuit 11 of FIG. 18 keeps oscillating while changing the oscillation frequency in response to the residual vibration of the diaphragm 121 of the electrostatic actuator 120.”; One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that a sensor which changes an oscillation frequency also changes the oscillation period, due to the reciprocal relationship between period and frequency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus including a controller as taught by Seo et al in view of Quintero et al with the controller capable of changing the oscillation frequency as taught by Shinkawa et al, for the benefit of detecting the proper ejection of droplets from the device using a method that allows for lowered manufacturing costs and a compact apparatus ([0380], “…the droplet ejection apparatus of this embodiment as described above does not need other parts (for example, optical missing dot detecting device or the like). As a result, not only an ejection failure of the droplets can be detected without increasing the size of the droplet ejection head, but also the manufacturing costs thereof can be reduced.”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 20160175834 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 30 August 2022) in view of Quintero et al (Quintero C, Rosenstein C, Hughes B, Middleton R, Kariv I. “Quality Control Procedures for Dose-Response Curve Generation Using Nanoliter Dispense Technologies.” Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12(6); 2007) in view of Shinkawa et al (US 20080088657 A1, cited on the 892 filed 22 August 2025) and further in view of Horie et al (US 20150352841 A1, cited on the 892 filed 22 August 2025).
With regards to claim 19, the apparatus according to claim 18 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Shinkawa et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “a first piezoelectric element configured to oscillate the film-like member” has been read on the taught ([0036], “When an electric voltage is applied to the upper and lower electrodes of the piezoelectric element 13, a compression stress is applied in a lateral direction of the plane of paper, and thereby the membrane 12 vibrates in a vertical direction of the plane of paper.”).
Shinkawa et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “a first piezoelectric element configured to oscillate the film-like member” has been read on the taught ([0361], “The piezoelectric element 200 starts to vibrate when a driving voltage waveform is applied (supplied) between the upper electrode 214 and the lower electrode 213, whereby the diaphragm 212 bonded to the piezoelectric element 200 starts to vibrate.”).
Shinkawa et al also teaches a vibration detector, as read on the taught ([0050], “In the droplet ejection apparatus of the invention, it is preferable that the residual vibration detecting means includes an oscillation circuit and the oscillation circuit oscillates in response to an electric capacitance component of the actuator that varies with the residual vibration of the diaphragm or in response to an electromotive voltage component of the actuator.”).
However, neither Seo et al in view of Quintero et al nor Shinkawa et al explicitly disclose wherein a second piezoelectric element configured to detect the back electromotive force.
In the analogous art of droplet generation devices, Horie et al teaches;
Wherein a piezoelectric element is used for detecting residual vibration, as read on the taught ([0033], “…the piezoelectric element may be used for detecting a residual vibration.”; [0171], “With the configuration of FIG. 15, not only the driving piezoelectric element 311 but also the supporting piezoelectric element 312 can be used for detecting the residual vibration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus including a piezoelectric actuator and a residual vibration detecting means as taught by Seo et al in view Shinkawa et al with the piezoelectric vibration detector as taught by Horie et al, for the benefit of a wider window in which to detect the residual vibration and of a simple device configuration as taught by Horie et al ([0172], “Accordingly, in the line scanning type inkjet recording apparatus 100, the flexibility of the timing to detect the residual vibration during printing is increased. Thus, the required time to detect the ink viscosities of the all nozzles 20 (residual vibration detection time) can be shortened. Further, it is unnecessary to provide additional sensors, so the inkjet recording head 220 can have a simple configuration.”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 20160175834 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 30 August 2022) in view of Quintero et al (Quintero C, Rosenstein C, Hughes B, Middleton R, Kariv I. “Quality Control Procedures for Dose-Response Curve Generation Using Nanoliter Dispense Technologies.” Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12(6); 2007) and further in view of Horie et al (US 20150352841 A1, cited on the 892 filed 22 August 2025).
With regards to claim 24, the apparatus according to claim 8 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al.
Seo et al additionally teaches;
The claimed “a first piezoelectric element including a piezoelectric body, a lower electrode provided on an upper surface side of the piezoelectric body, and an upper electrode provided on a lower surface side of the piezoelectric body” has been read on the taught ([0036], “When an electric voltage is applied to the upper and lower electrodes of the piezoelectric element 13, a compression stress is applied in a lateral direction of the plane of paper, and thereby the membrane 12 vibrates in a vertical direction of the plane of paper.”);
However, Seo et al in view of Quintero et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid droplet discharging apparatus further comprises a second piezoelectric element for detecting the back electromotive force generated by the first piezoelectric element.
In the analogous art of droplet generation devices, Horie et al teaches;
The claimed “a second piezoelectric element for detecting the back electromotive force generated by the first piezoelectric element” has been read on the taught ([0033], “…the piezoelectric element may be used for detecting a residual vibration.”; [0171], “With the configuration of FIG. 15, not only the driving piezoelectric element 311 but also the supporting piezoelectric element 312 can be used for detecting the residual vibration.”; Supporting piezoelectric element 312 reads on a second piezoelectric element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus including a piezoelectric actuator and a residual vibration detecting means as taught by Seo et al in view of Quintero et al with the piezoelectric vibration detector as taught by Horie et al, for the benefit of a wider window in which to detect the residual vibration and of a simple device configuration as taught by Horie et al ([0172], “Accordingly, in the line scanning type inkjet recording apparatus 100, the flexibility of the timing to detect the residual vibration during printing is increased. Thus, the required time to detect the ink viscosities of the all nozzles 20 (residual vibration detection time) can be shortened. Further, it is unnecessary to provide additional sensors, so the inkjet recording head 220 can have a simple configuration.”).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al (US 20160175834 A1, cited on the IDS submitted 30 August 2022) in view of Quintero et al (Quintero C, Rosenstein C, Hughes B, Middleton R, Kariv I. “Quality Control Procedures for Dose-Response Curve Generation Using Nanoliter Dispense Technologies.” Journal of Biomolecular Screening 12(6); 2007) in view of Shinkawa et al (US 20080088657 A1) as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Murata et al (US 20180178537 A1).
With regards to claim 25, the apparatus according to claim 20 is obvious over Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Shinkawa et al.
However, this combination does not teach a supplier configured to feed or suck the liquid to change a volume of the liquid held in the discharge head, wherein controller circuitry is configured to control the oscillation period by causing the supplier to adjust the volume of the liquid held in the discharge head so that the oscillation period matches a predetermined time.
In the analogous art of liquid discharging, Murata et al teaches;
A liquid dispensing head, including a liquid supply tank and a piezoelectric discharge element, as read on the taught ([0024], “…the liquid discharging head 20 includes a nozzle plate 21, a substrate 22, and a manifold 23 which is bonded to the substrate 22.”; [0026], “On a portion of the substrate 22 which faces each pressure chamber 25, an actuator 24 is provided.”; [0027], “The actuator 24 is configured into a unimorph type piezoelectric vibration plate…”; [0032], “The supply chamber 31 is configured to be capable of accommodating liquid and is connected to the upstream side of the liquid discharging head 20.”;
The claimed “a supplier configured to feed or suck the liquid to change a volume of the liquid held in the discharge head, wherein controller circuitry is configured to control the oscillation period by causing the supplier to adjust the volume of the liquid held in the discharge head so that the oscillation period matches a predetermined time” has been read on the taught ([0032], “The supply chamber 31 is provided with a liquid level sensor 31b which detects the liquid level in the supply chamber 31.”; [0063], “…when the first supply process is continued for a predetermined time, liquid is pumped by the supply pump 53 into to the supply chamber 31, and the liquid level in the supply chamber 31 increases.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric dispenser as taught by Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Shinkawa et al with the supplier configured to feed a liquid as taught by Murata et al. According to MPEP 2143(I)(C), use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way may be prima facie obvious. In the case of the instant invention, the prior art of Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Shinkawa et al teaches a “base” device of a piezoelectric liquid dispenser, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Murata et al teaches a comparable device of a liquid dispenser, which has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention with a supplier configured to adjust the volume of liquid. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the technique of including a supplier in the same way to the base device taught by Seo et al in view of Quintero et al and further in view of Shinkawa et al, for the predictable result of an improved system which can continually dispense a sample fluid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art devices compensate for the loss of fluid in the fluid chamber by supplying additional sample (see Murata et al, US 20180178537 A1) or by changing the oscillation to compensate for the new vibrational properties of the chamber (see Kuramochi et al, JP 2019162099 A). The prior art of Larson et al (US 20040071601 A1) teaches that low fluid levels are a known issue in fluid dispensing, and teaches “top filling” as a possible solution ([0017]). Bobusch et al (US 20210072193 A1, effectively filed 20 December 2018) teaches changing the size of a fluidic chamber to modify oscillation features, but accomplishes this with a piston located outside of the chamber ([0073] and [0097]). Bobusch et al does not teach an adjustment member in contact with the liquid held in the discharge head. The cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed droplet discharging apparatus that includes an adjuster disposed at a position facing the nozzle hole, at least a portion of the adjustment member being in contact with the liquid held in the discharge head. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 26 and 27 are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/ALISON CLAIRE GERHARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797