DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (2020/0105995) in view of Kita et al. (2005/0140249) and Sugahara (2006/0152556).
Regarding claim 1, Kitada teaches a droplet ejection head comprising:
a nozzle plate (fig. 6, item 220) having a nozzle (fig. 6, item 222) configured to eject a liquid as droplets;
substrate (fig. 6, item 210) having a pressure chamber continuous to the nozzle;
a vibration plate (fig. 1, item 230) forming a part of a wall surface of the pressure chamber (see fig. 6); and
a piezoelectric element (fig. 1, item 10/20/30) containing potassium, sodium, and niobium ([0006]) and formed on the vibration plate (see fig. 1), wherein
the piezoelectric element includes a first electrode (fig. 1, item 10), a second electrode (fig. 1, item 30), and a piezoelectric layer (fig. 1m item 20) located between the first electrode and the second electrode (see fig. 1),
a total thickness of the piezoelectric layer, the first electrode, and the second electrode is larger than a thickness of the vibration plate (see fig. 1).
Kitada does not teach wherein an absolute value of a displacement amount of the vibration plate when a voltage having an absolute value of 25 V is applied to the piezoelectric element as a voltage for displacing the vibration plate in one direction is 2.0 times or more an absolute value of a displacement amount of the vibration plate when a voltage having an absolute value of 25 V is applied to the piezoelectric element as a voltage for displacing the vibration plate in another direction.
Kita teaches wherein equal absolute values of voltages applied to a piezoelectric actuator produce different amounts of displacement, wherein a first displacement is more than two times a second displacement (Kita, fig. 5, [0138]-[0141], Note that values Ec1 and Ec2 can be chosen as equal in absolute value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the asymmetrical displacement/voltage scheme disclosed by Kita to the device disclosed by Kitada because doing so would allow for more precise control of the piezoelectric actuators by accounting for hysteresis in the piezoelectric element.
Further, MPEP 2144.05 states that, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, Kitada in view of Kita teaches all of the general conditions, and thus the ranges of displacement of the vibration plate of the claimed invention are not inventive.
Kitada in view of Kita does not teach wherein the on direction is a direction in which the pressure chamber expands and the another direction is a direction in which the pressure chamber contracts. Sugahara teaches a pressure chamber that expands only expands and then returns to its rest state, i.e., the expansion displacement is more than two times any contraction displacement (Sugahara, see figs. 9, 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the expansion/contraction scheme for the pressure chamber disclosed by Kitada in view of Kita because doing so would amount to combining a known pressure chamber volume operation scheme with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kitada in view of Kita and Sugahara teaches the droplet ejection head according to claim 1, wherein
the piezoelectric layer is disposed between the vibration plate and the second electrode, and the first electrode is disposed between the vibration plate and the piezoelectric layer (Kitada, see fig. 1, note that, as defined above, this is the case). Kitada in view of Kita does not expressly teach wherein
a resistance of the piezoelectric element when a potential applied to the second electrode is smaller than a potential applied to the first electrode is larger than a resistance of the piezoelectric element when a potential applied to the second electrode is larger than a potential applied to the first electrode.
However, Examiner maintains that it is inherent within Kitada that the piezoelectric element and vibration plate of Kitada meets the resistance limitation claimed. As can be seen in Kitada’s Figure 1 and Figure 4 of the present application, the structure and composition of all of the claimed components is exactly the same, and thus it follows that Kitada’s resistance would be the same as that of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Kitada in view of Kita and Sugahara teaches the droplet ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric layer includes a plurality of piezoelectric films (Kitada, fig. 1, items 20, 22) and the plurality of piezoelectric films are disposed between the vibration plate and the second electrode such that each of the plurality piezoelectric films overlap the vibration plate and the second electrode (Kitada, Note that layers 20, 22 are necessarily laminated bottom up).
Regarding claim 4, Kitada in view of Kita and Sugahara teaches the droplet ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode or the second electrode contains a conductive oxide material (Kitada, [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Kitada in view of Kita and Sugahara teaches the printer comprising: the droplet ejection head (Kitada, fig. 6, item 200) according to claim 1; a conveyance mechanism (Kitada, fig. 7, item 340) configured to move a recording medium relative to the droplet ejection head (Kitada, see fig. 7); and a control unit (Kitada, [0014]) configured to control the droplet ejection head and the conveyance mechanism (Kitada, [0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sugahara.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853