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 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the combination of Kitahara in view of Ito, because Ito teaches using lithium niobate piezoelectric actuators and “there is no mention of use of piezoelectric ceramic materials” (page 7 of remarks). Regardless of Ito’s specific piezoelectric material, however, Katahara discloses using piezoelectric ceramics. The Office Action did not rely on Ito’s teachings to import a particular piezoelectric material into Kitahara’s actuator, as seemingly argued, but to show that it was known to avoid piezoelectric depolarization by using a solder material that melts at or below half the Curie point of the piezoelectric.
Applicant also argues that “applying an Ito-like process for joining/bonding a single crystal piezoelectric material to a metal to the joining/bonding of a piezoelectric ceramic to a flexigble printed circuit (FPC) in the Kitahara device design would thus not be obvious …” (pages 7-8 of remarks). However, the Office Action did not rely on Ito’s teachings to import the process of bonding single crystal piezoelectric layers together, as seemingly argued, but to show that it was known to avoid piezoelectric depolarization by using a solder material that melts at or below half the Curie point of the piezoelectric.
Examiner recognizes that Ito discloses using solder to bond the piezoelectric layers together, and also to bond the piezoelectric actuator to an FPC. Please note that the Office Action did not rely on Ito for the entire process of manufacturing a piezoelectric actuator (i.e. selecting piezoelectric materials, bonding piezoelectric layers, etc.). Rather, the Office Action relied on Ito for the teaching that depolarization of a piezoelectric actuator (thus requiring repolarization) can be avoided during heat processing by using a solder that melts at or below half the Curie point of the piezoelectric material. An artisan would recognize that such a teaching is not limited to the process of bonding between piezoelectric layers, but extends to other processes involving heating and soldering with piezoelectric materials, including bonding a piezoelectric actuator to an FPC using solder.
In light of the above, Examiner has found no reason to withdraw the previously applied rejection(s).
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, 6, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara et al. (US 2002/0044180 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2015/0145379 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18:
Kitahara et al. disclose a liquid ejecting apparatus comprising:
a liquid ejecting head (Fig. 1) configured to eject droplets of a liquid (paragraph 71), the liquid ejecting head including:
a piezoelectric member (piezoelectric vibrator unit 1) including a plurality of piezoelectric elements (piezoelectric vibrators 2) formed of a piezoelectric ceramic material (piezoelectric material 5: paragraphs 76, 127 & Figs. 1-2);
a plurality of external electrodes (at least one of conductive layers 8, 10) formed on a side surface of the plurality of piezoelectric elements (Fig. 1); and
a flexible printed circuit (flexible cable 12) joined to the plurality of external electrodes by solder (paragraph 51 & Fig. 1).
Kitahara et al. do not expressly disclose a melting point of the solder relative to the Curie point of the piezoelectric material.
However, Ito discloses soldering a flexible printed circuit (FPC 47/48) to a piezoelectric member (transducer 2), and wherein the melting point of a solder should be less than half the Curie point of the piezoelectric material to avoid depolarization (paragraph 72).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Kitahara et al.’s soldering such that the solder melts at a temperature less than or equal to ½ of the Curie point of the piezoelectric material, as suggested by Ito.
Regarding claim 6:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 3, and Ito also discloses that the solder is lead-free (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 11:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kitahara et al. also disclose that the piezoelectric elements comprise a plurality of piezoelectric layers stacked one on the other (paragraphs 72-76 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 11, and Kitahara et al. also disclose that the piezoelectric elements include interval electrode layers (internal electrodes 3-4) connected to the plurality of electrodes (paragraph 49 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 12, and Kitahara et al. also disclose that the wiring substrate/flexible printed circuit is directly soldered to the plurality of piezoelectric elements (paragraph 54 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 19:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claims 12/18, and Kitahara et al. also disclose that the flexible printed circuit is directly soldered to a lateral surface of the plurality of piezoelectric elements (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 18, and Ito also discloses that the melting point of the solder is greater than 90°C (paragraph 72).
Claims 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kitahara et al. in view of Ito, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fort Filgueira et al. (US 2019/0061377 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Ito also disclose the melting point of a solder (paragraph 72) which is applied at a junction between the piezoelectric member and the flexible printed circuit (Fig. 5).
Kitahara et al.’s modified head does not expressly disclose a highest attainment temperature at the junction.
However, Fort Filgueira et al. disclose a liquid ejecting head (102) in which the temperature of the head is maintained below a safe operating temperature, such as 70 or 80°C, so as to avoid damage to the print head or color-shifting (paragraph 22)
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to control the temperature of Kitahara et al.’s head, in the manner taught by Fort Filgueira et al. In doing so, the melting point of the solder is naturally greater than the highest attainment temperature.
Regarding claim 4:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 3, and Ito also discloses that the solder is lead-free (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 5:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 3, and Fort Filgueira et al. also disclose that the highest attainment temperature is in a range of 80 to 90°C or less (paragraph 22).
Claims 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kitahara et al. in view of Ito, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mardilovich (US 2019/0006574 A1).
Regarding claims 7-10:
Kitahara et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claims 1/6, but does not expressly disclose the particular type of piezoelectric ceramic material.
However, Mardilovich discloses a liquid ejecting head (paragraph 4) that comprises a piezoelectric elements (“actuators”) of improved reliability (paragraph 19), the piezoelectric elements being formed of a piezoelectric ceramic material (paragraph 98), wherein the piezoelectric ceramic material may be lead zirconate titanate or potassium sodium niobate (paragraph 98).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kitahara et al.’s head to utilize lead zirconate titanate piezoelectric elements, as taught by Mardilovich.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2004/0217186 A1 teaches that low temperature solder should be used when soldering a piezoelectric actuator, since the piezoelectric material may become partially or completely de-poled if the piezo temperature rises too much.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 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, Douglas 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853