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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument for the limitation “wherein a value obtained by dividing the first width by the first distance is equal to or more than 0.775,” applicant states “the office action suggests that finding particular first width and the first distance would be found through routine experimentation, the office action provides no evidence as to whether or not it would result in an orifice achieving the desired performance desired by Jaubertie.” Applicant further describes various performance aspects of Jaubertie to further the idea that no evidence is provided that the modification to Jaubertie would result in the described functionality. However, an argument regarding the performance of a modified Jaubertie is moot because a modified Jaubertie does not equate to the original. Essentially, a modified Jaubertie will lead to a modified performance. Routine optimization/experimentation is about what the teaching(s) in the prior art suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. To further this, a modified rejection is being presented to better demonstrate how the prior art equates to the claimed invention.
Regarding applicant’s remarks at the top of page 12, that recitation from paragraph 0065 of applicant’s specification does not constitute criticality as the ability to reduce something that’s merely “possible” does not appear to provide any kind of critical nature to the feature. Further, applicant’s disclosure doesn’t establish any unexpected results by providing a comparison of a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d). Lastly, applicant states that the language is not taught, suggested or reasonably disclosed by the cited art, however this language does not appear in any claim at present.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first driving element” and “second driving element” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaubertie (US Pat No 6,726,130 B2).
Re claim 20, Jaubertie shows a liquid ejecting head (Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
a nozzle (Fig. 1) configured to eject a liquid in an ejection direction, wherein
a certain position (Figs. 2 and 18) in the nozzle regarding the ejection direction is a first position,
a sectional shape (29) of the nozzle perpendicular to the ejection direction at the first position is a first external shape,
a longitudinal direction of the first external shape, which is orthogonal to the ejection direction, is a first direction (annotated Dr1),
a direction orthogonal to both the ejection direction and the first direction is a second direction (annotated Dr2),
a straight line extending in the second direction and passing through a center of the first external shape regarding the first direction is a first center line (annotated centerline for left 29),
a first width (annotated W1) corresponding to a maximum width regarding the second direction in a portion of the first external shape on one side in the first direction with respect to the first center line is at a third position (annotated P3) serving as a certain position regarding the first direction,
a second width (annotated W2) corresponding to a maximum width regarding the second direction in a portion of the first external shape on an other side in the first direction with respect to the first center line is at a fourth position (annotated P4) serving as a certain position regarding the first direction,
a certain position between the first center line and the third position regarding the first direction is a seventh position (annotated P7)
a certain position between the first center line and the fourth position regarding the first direction is an eighth position (annotated P8), and
a fourth width corresponding to a width of the first external shape regarding the second direction at a position located from the seventh position to the eighth position is substantially constant (col. 4, lines 16-18),
the first external shape (29) includes a first portion (3) of the first external shape on the one side in the first direction (annotated Dr1) with respect to the seventh position (annotated P7) and a second portion (14) on the other side in the first direction with respect to the eighth position (annotated P8), and
a first distance (annotated D1) between the third position (annotated P3) and the fourth position (annotated P4) regarding the first direction (annotated Dr1) is greater than the first width (annotated W1) and greater than the second width (annotated W2) such that a first liquid droplet ejected from the first portion (3) and a second liquid droplet ejected from the second portion (14) are ejected in directions that approach each other and are united before liquid landing on a medium.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaubertie (US Pat No 6,726,130 B2).
Re claim 1, Jaubertie shows a liquid ejecting head (Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
a nozzle (Fig. 1) configured to eject a liquid in an ejection direction, wherein
a certain position (Figs. 2 and 18) in the nozzle regarding the ejection direction is a first position,
a sectional shape (29) of the nozzle perpendicular to the ejection direction at the first position is a first external shape,
a longitudinal direction of the first external shape, which is orthogonal to the ejection direction, is a first direction (annotated Dr1),
a direction orthogonal to both the ejection direction and the first direction is a second direction (annotated Dr2),
a straight line extending in the second direction and passing through a center of the first external shape regarding the first direction is a first center line (annotated centerline for left 29),
a first width (annotated W1) corresponding to a maximum width regarding the second direction in a portion of the first external shape on one side in the first direction with respect to the first center line is at a third position (annotated P3) serving as a certain position regarding the first direction,
a second width (annotated W2) corresponding to a maximum width regarding the second direction in a portion of the first external shape on an other side in the first direction with respect to the first center line is at a fourth position (annotated P4) serving as a certain position regarding the first direction, and
a first distance (annotated D1) between the third position (annotated P3) and the fourth position (annotated P4) regarding the first direction (annotated D1) is greater than the first width (annotated W1) and greater than the second width (annotated W2).
a third width (annotated W3) corresponding to a width of the first external shape regarding the second direction at the center regarding the first direction is narrower than the first width (annotated W1) and narrower than the second width (annotated W2),
a fifth width (annotated W5) corresponding to a width of the first external shape regarding the second direction at a fifth position (annotated P5) serving as a certain position between the first center line and the third position (annotated P3) is wider than the third width (annotated W3), and
a sixth width (annotated W6) corresponding to a width of the first external shape regarding the second direction at a sixth position (annotated P6) serving as a certain position between the first center line and the fourth position (annotated P4) is wider than the third width (annotated W3).
Jaubertie does not teach a value obtained by dividing the first width by the first distance is equal to or more than 0.775.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a value obtained by dividing the first width by the first distance is equal to or more than 0.775, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the radius of the channel which achieves the recognized result of having an overall flow section of the outlet orifice having an area equal to that of the neck (col. 4, lines 22-25), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a value equal to more than 0.775 for the quotient of the first width divided by the first distance since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
604
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 3, Jaubertie shows a certain position between the first center line and the third position regarding the first direction is a seventh position (annotated P7)
a certain position between the first center line and the fourth position regarding the first direction is an eighth position (annotated P8), and
a fourth width corresponding to a width of the first external shape regarding the second direction at a position located from the seventh position to the eighth position is substantially constant (col. 4, lines 16-18).
Re claim 4, Jaubertie shows a certain position between the first center line and the third position regarding the first direction is a ninth position (annotated P9),
a certain position between the first center line and the fourth position regarding the first direction is a tenth position (annotated P10),
a distance between the first external shape and a first center of the first width is substantially constant on the one side of the first external shape in the first direction with respect to the ninth position (distance between P9 and center of left 29 is substantially constant), and
a distance between the first external shape and a second center of the second width is substantially constant on the other side of the first external shape in the first direction with respect to the tenth position (distance between P10 and center of right 29 is substantially constant).
Re claim 6, Jaubertie shows a certain position between the first center line and the third position regarding the first direction is a seventh position (annotated P7),
a certain position between the first center line and the fourth position regarding the first direction is an eighth position (annotated P8),
a width of the first external shape regarding the second direction at a position located from the seventh position to the eighth position is a fourth width (equal to W3).
Jaubertie discloses the claimed invention except for an average value of values obtained by dividing the first width by the fourth width, from the seventh position to the eighth position, is equal to or more than 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an average value of values obtained by dividing the first width by the fourth width, from the seventh position to the eighth position, is equal to or more than 2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the radius of the channel which achieves the recognized result of having an overall flow section of the outlet orifice having an area equal to that of the neck (col. 4, lines 22-25), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Claims 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaubertie (US Pat No 6,726,130 B2) in view of Drury et al. (US Pat No 7,651,037 B2).
Re claim 15, Jaubertie discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a first pressure chamber;
a second pressure chamber;
a first driving element for the first pressure chamber, the first driving element configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid;
a second driving element for the second pressure chamber configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid; and
a communication channel extending in the first direction, through which the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber communicate, wherein
the nozzle is provided halfway in the communication channel, and
a flow direction of liquid flowing through the communication channel from the first pressure chamber to the second pressure chamber is the first direction.
However, Drury et al. show a liquid ejecting head (Fig. 20) including a first pressure chamber (510);
a second pressure chamber (512);
a first driving element (left 130) for the first pressure chamber, the first driving element configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid;
a second driving element (right 130) for the second pressure chamber configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid; and
a communication channel (516) extending in the first direction, through which the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber communicate, wherein
the nozzle (526) is provided halfway in the communication channel, and
a flow direction (arrows) of liquid flowing through the communication channel (526) from the first pressure chamber (510) to the second pressure chamber (512) is the first direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to use the nozzle in Jaubertie with the ejecting head of Drury et al. to provide a head that substantially prevents heat from being transferred through the support members to the actuators (Drury – col. 11, lines 1-3).
Re claim 17, Jaubertie discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a liquid tank in which the liquid to be supplied to the liquid ejecting head is stored.
However Drury et al. show a liquid tank (Fig. 11, 200) in which liquid to be supplied to the liquid ejecting head is stored.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to provide the liquid ejecting head of Jaubertie with a tank as taught by Drury et al. to provide a fluid supply which has to be connected to the fluid inlet (Jaubertie – col. 2, lines 3-4).
Re claim 19, Jaubertie shows a liquid ejecting head (Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
a nozzle (Fig. 1) configured to eject a liquid in an ejection direction, wherein
a certain position (Figs. 2 and 18) in the nozzle regarding the ejection direction is a first position,
a sectional shape (29) of the nozzle perpendicular to the ejection direction at the first position is a first external shape,
a longitudinal direction of the first external shape, which is orthogonal to the ejection direction, is a first direction (annotated Dr1),
a direction orthogonal to both the ejection direction and the first direction is a second direction (annotated Dr2),
a straight line extending in the second direction and passing through a center of the first external shape regarding the first direction is a first center line (annotated centerline for left 29),
a first width (annotated W1) corresponding to a maximum width regarding the second direction in a portion of the first external shape on one side in the first direction with respect to the first center line is at a third position (annotated P3) serving as a certain position regarding the first direction,
a second width (annotated W2) corresponding to a maximum width regarding the second direction in a portion of the first external shape on an other side in the first direction with respect to the first center line is at a fourth position (annotated P4) serving as a certain position regarding the first direction, and
a first distance (annotated D1) between the third position (annotated P3) and the fourth position (annotated P4) regarding the first direction (annotated D1) is greater than the first width (annotated W1) and greater than the second width (annotated W2).
Jaubertie does not teach a first pressure chamber;
a second pressure chamber;
a first driving element for the first pressure chamber, the first driving element configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid;
a second driving element for the second pressure chamber configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid; and
a communication channel extending in the first direction, through which the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber communicate, wherein
the nozzle is provided halfway in the communication channel, and
a flow direction of liquid flowing through the communication channel from the first pressure chamber to the second pressure chamber is the first direction.
However, Drury et al. show a liquid ejecting head (Fig. 20) including a first pressure chamber (510);
a second pressure chamber (512);
a first driving element (left 130) for the first pressure chamber, the first driving element configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid;
a second driving element (right 130) for the second pressure chamber configured to generate pressure for ejecting the liquid; and
a communication channel (516) extending in the first direction, through which the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber communicate, wherein
the nozzle (526) is provided halfway in the communication channel, and
a flow direction (arrows) of liquid flowing through the communication channel (526) from the first pressure chamber (510) to the second pressure chamber (512) is the first direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to use the nozzle in Jaubertie with the ejecting head of Drury et al. to provide a head that substantially prevents heat from being transferred through the support members to the actuators (Drury – col. 11, lines 1-3).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaubertie (US Pat No 6,726,130 B2) in view of Harris et al. (US Pub No 2021/0253881 A1).
Re claim 16, Jaubertie discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the liquid to be supplied to the nozzle has a viscosity of 20 mpa-s or less at 25[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
However, Harris et al. teach a liquid with a viscosity of 20mpa-s or less at 25[Symbol font/0xB0]C (paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to provide the liquid ejecting head of Jaubertie with a liquid having a viscosity of 20 mpa-s or less at 25[Symbol font/0xB0]C as taught by Harris et al. to provide a viable and stable solution (Harris – paragraph 0012).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752