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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the controller, memory, and memory location of the fluid ejection head must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-12 and 14-20 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 2 recites the limitation "nozzle diameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "flow channel width" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "ejection chamber area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "nozzle plate thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "flow feature layer thickness" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "flow channel length" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "each ejection head" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, only “a fluid ejection head” has been claimed, there does not appear to be claimed multiple fluid ejection heads claimed. It is noted the method is for a singular fluid ejection head, and does not include being for multiple ejection heads such that “each” of said ejection heads can be claimed.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "heater sheet resistivity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "heater sheet thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "silicon nitride layer thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "cavitation layer resistivity" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "cavitation layer thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "heater sheet resistivity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "heater sheet thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "silicon nitride layer thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "cavitation layer resistivity" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "cavitation layer thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the length of the fluid ejection head" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the voltage" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "nozzle diameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "flow channel width" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "ejection chamber area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "nozzle plate thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "flow feature layer thickness" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "flow channel length" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the length of the fluid ejection head" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "heater sheet resistivity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "heater sheet thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "silicon nitride layer thickness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "cavitation layer resistivity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "cavitation layer thickness" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverbrook (U.S. 2006/0268064) in view of Govyadinov (U.S. 2018/0023995).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Silverbrook discloses a method for delivering a predetermined amount of fluid from a fluid ejection head comprising:
measuring one or more parameters selected from the group consisting of fluid flow parameters (parameters found in table of paragraphs 0230 and 0294, such as the dimensions of various fluid low elements such as the nozzle, chambers, channels, and the inlet) and electrical parameters (paragraph 0294, such as the heater resistivity and thickness of the heater) for the fluid ejection head to provide one or more measured parameters;
calculating a fluid ejection offset value from the one or more measured parameters (such as paragraph 0035, where the energy pules of the heater element are adjusted to maintain a constant energy, paragraphs 0283-0287 further disclose adjustments happening with the controller and the heater);
(for claim 1) and adjusting an amount of fluid ejected from the fluid ejection head during a fluid ejection step using the fluid ejection offset value to provide the predetermined amount of fluid from the fluid ejection head (see paragraphs 0283-0287 and 0342, where adjustments are made to achieve the desired consistent drop volume).
(for claim 13) adjusting a dropcount of fluid droplets ejected from the fluid ejection head during a fluid ejection step using the fluid ejection offset value to provide the predetermined amount of fluid ejected (paragraph 0342, discloses achieving the desired consistent drop volume, where specific droplet count is found in paragraph 0379, as the nominal drop repetition rate (the rate at which the droplets are applied and understood being the drop count, as the number of droplets applied during a specific time)).
Silverbrook fails to specifically disclose storing the fluid ejection offset value in a memory location on the fluid ejection head; accessing the fluid ejection offset value by an ejection head controller.
Govyadinov discloses, paragraph 0019, utilizing the lookup tables of the device on a stored memory, such as memory 56, where such tables and calculations can be done from the data from the system (paragraph 0055) allowing for the device to allow for the determined and stored relationships between the drop ejection and the signals from the system to allow for instructions within the memory to run to apply various offsets and adjustments in the system. Figure 1 discloses the drop injector head, with the injector 30 and the memory 56 as well as 54, all being connected and the location of figure 1, paragraph 0020 discloses 50 is integrated as part of the chip or substrate 26, which forms the drophead itself.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize storing the fluid ejection offset value in a memory location on the fluid ejection head; accessing the fluid ejection offset value by an ejection head controller as disclosed by Govyadinov into the system of Silverbrook, as doing so would allow for the device to allow for the determined and stored relationships between the drop ejection and the signals from the system to allow for instructions within the memory to run to apply various offsets and adjustments in the system. It is understood from what memory that Silverbrook has memory, to include such tables in the system, but it is never specified. Further placement of the memory on the fluid ejection head is understood as allowing the whole device to be comprised as one installed piece.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Silverbrook discloses the fluid flow parameters are selected from the group consisting of nozzle diameter (paragraph 0294), flow channel width, ejection chamber area , nozzle plate layer thickness, flow feature layer thickness (actuator glass thickness), flow channel length (paragraph 0294), and combinations of two or more of the foregoing.
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Silverbrook as modified discloses averaging one or more of the fluid flow parameters along the length of each fluid ejection head to provide a fluid flow parameter offset value for each ejection head (as the fluid flow parameter offset value, is understood as the various dimensions given of the device, and how they are utilized in programing the fluid flow within the system, such that when designing the system the dimensions and various aspects of the nozzle and flow paths are utilized to determine the overall flow there through, such accurate fluid flow and control is disclosed in paragraph 0319, furthermore Govyadinov paragraph 0016-0019, discloses utilizing the flow through the device and sensing it as well as making adjustments and calculations, further noting such dimensions of the device and sensing elements are utilized when applying offsets or adjustments, paragraph 0055; its understood that each ejection head in the system is the same, so such changes can be averaged from the parameters and information of all the heads).
With respect to claim 4 and 16, Silverbrook as modified discloses storing the fluid flow parameter offset value in the memory location on the ejection head (as Govyadinov discloses utilizing such stored parameters, paragraphs 0019 and 0055, essentially if you make a change to the operation of the fluid flow, saving the change (offset value)).
With respect to claims 5, 8, and 17, Silverbrook as modified discloses the electrical parameters are selected from the group consisting of heater sheet resistivity (paragraph 0294), heater sheet thickness (paragraph 2094), silicon nitride layer thickness, cavitation layer resistivity, cavitation layer thickness (paragraph 0294, actuator glass thickness), and a combination of two or more of the foregoing.
With respect to claims 6, 9, and 18 Silverbrook as modified discloses further comprising averaging one or more of the electrical parameters to provide an electrical parameter offset value for the ejection head (as the electrical energy to the heaters are adjusted, such that the averaging would be that of the 10 nozzles sharing a common ink channel (paragraph 0244) and thus the heat applied across the nozzle group would be the heat averaged across them to be utilized).
With respect to claims 7, Silverbrook discloses comprising storing the electrical parameter offset value in a memory location on the ejection head (as Govyadinov discloses utilizing such stored parameters, paragraphs 0019 and 0055, essentially if you make a change to the operation of the fluid flow, saving the change (offset value)).
With respect to claims 10 and 19, Silverbrook as modified discloses further comprising combining the fluid flow parameter offset value and the electrical parameter offset value to provide the fluid ejection offset value (as both the dimensions and electrical energy needed for the heater are utilized when making adjustments, such heating adjustment being that of 0035, where there is not just heating but viscosity and flow within the system, these are understood being dimensions that are also required to be offset, Govyadinov paragraph 0016-0019, discloses utilizing the flow through the device and sensing it as well as making adjustments and calculations, further noting such dimensions of the device and sensing elements are utilized when applying offsets or adjustments, paragraph 0055; its understood that each ejection head in the system is the same, so such changes can be averaged from the parameters and information of all the heads. Where it’s understood as being obvious (implied) that when there is change in the fluid flow in the system the fluid flow through the system is taken into consideration as well as the electrical use (and the temperature of the fluid and its adjustments) to accurately adjust the heat to get the desired fluid flow through the system).
With respect to claim 11, Silverbrook as modified discloses the step of adjusting the amount of fluid ejected from the ejection head is selected from the group consisting of changing a dropcount of fluid droplets ejected during the ejection step (paragraphs 0175 and 0379, disclose different Hz being used, and thus different drop counts to utilize different printing speed versus power of the operation) and changing a size of fluid droplets ejected during a fluid ejection step (paragraph 0318 and 0313, where resolution is changed via droplet size, smaller droplets are required for higher resolutions).
With respect to claim 12, Silverbrook as modified discloses the size of fluid droplets ejected during a fluid ejection step is changed by a method selected from the group consisting of changing a fluid ejection temperature during the fluid ejection step (as disclosed above, changing the power to the heater to change the temperature), changing a firing pulse width of one or more fluid ejectors during the fluid ejection step, changing the voltage to the ejection head (paragraph 0179), changing a firing frequency of one or more fluid ejectors during the fluid ejection step, and a combination of two or more of the foregoing.
With respect to claim 20, Silverbrook discloses the fluid ejection head is a thermal fluid ejection head (being a heated fluid ejection system, abstract, paragraph 0020).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752