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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 6, 11-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse (WO 2021/257998), and further in view of Furukawa (US 2007/0013750).
With regard to claim 1, Tse discloses an inkjet printhead (10) with a plurality of nozzles to eject a liquid solution [printing fluid] by an electrohydrodynamic method, [e-jet; Pg. 1; line 5] the inkjet printhead comprising:
a first electrode (24) formed for each of the plurality of nozzles (16, 16’, 116, 116’) [pg. 5; lines 9, 12; Fig. 2], and applied with a voltage (V) [Pg. 5; line 11; Fig. 2] ejecting the liquid solution by the electrohydrodynamic method;
a first voltage controller configured to apply the voltage to the first electrode [voltage function (V) is applied to both nozzles; Pg. 5; line 11]; and
a second electrode (22, 22’, 122) [extractor; Pg. 5; line7; Fig. 1] placed between and spaced apart from the first electrodes formed in the nozzles [Fig. 2] and grounded [electrical ground; Pg. 5; line 9; Fig. 2] to inhibit electric field interference between the nozzles,
wherein the second electrodes are individually formed between the adjacent first electrodes [first and second nozzles are located between first and second extractors; Pg. 2; lines 18-21; Fig. 2].
Tse does not explicitly disclose a first voltage controller configured to apply the voltage to the first electrode [voltage function (V) is applied to both nozzles].
However, Furukawa teaches a first voltage controller (33) [Para. 0067] configured to apply a voltage to a first electrode.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inkjet printhead with a controller to apply a voltage to the first electrode in order to control the voltage value at the time of ejection and non-ejection of ink.
With regard to claim 2, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Furukawa further teaches comprising a nozzle layer (32 and 34) [substrate; Para. 0053] formed with a plurality of nozzle chambers [Fig. 1A, 1B] to store ink supplied for each nozzle and a nozzle hole (not labeled) [open area in nozzle layer; Fig. 1A] on a bottom of the nozzle chamber to eject a liquid solution [Fig. 1A], wherein the first electrode is formed on an inner surface of the nozzle chamber [Fig. 1A], and the second electrode is formed on a top surface of the nozzle layer [Fig. 1A].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of nozzle chambers of Tse with a nozzle layer and configure the first electrode on an inner surface of the nozzle chamber and the second electrode on a top surface of the nozzle layer in order to better shield against electric lines of force between adjacent first electrodes.
With regard to claim 6, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Furukawa teaches a nozzle layer (32 and 34[substrate; Para. 0053] formed with a plurality of nozzle chambers [Fig. 1A, 1B] to store ink supplied for each nozzle and a nozzle hole (not labeled) [open area in nozzle layer; Fig. 1A] on a bottom of the nozzle chamber to eject a liquid solution [Fig. 1A], wherein the first electrode is formed on an inner surface of the nozzle chamber [Fig. 1A], and the second electrode is formed on a bottom surface of the nozzle layer [Fig. 1A].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of nozzle chambers of Tse with a nozzle layer and configure the first electrode on an inner surface of the nozzle chamber and the second electrode on a top surface of the nozzle layer in order to better shield against electric lines of force between adjacent first electrodes.
With regard to claim 11, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Furukawa teaches a nozzle layer (34) formed with a plurality of nozzle chambers [Fig. 1A and 1B] to store ink supplied for each nozzle and a nozzle hole (not labeled) [open area in nozzle layer; Fig. 1A] on a bottom of the nozzle chamber to eject a liquid solution [Fig. 1A]; and a spacing layer (32) placed on the nozzle layer and formed with a channel (30) penetrated to communicate with the nozzle chamber [Figs. 1A and 1B], wherein the first electrode is formed on an inner surface of the nozzle chamber, and the second electrode is formed on a top surface of the spacing layer [Figs. 1A and 1B].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of nozzle chambers of Tse with a nozzle layer and configure the first electrode on an inner surface of the nozzle chamber and the second electrode on a top surface of the nozzle layer in order to better shield against electric lines of force between adjacent first electrodes.
With regard to claim 12, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and Furukawa teaches wherein the second electrode is formed on a bottom surface of the nozzle layer [Figs. 1A and 1B].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second electrode on a bottom surface of the nozzle layer of Tse modified in order to better shield against electric lines of force between adjacent first electrodes.
With regard to claim 17, Tse discloses an inkjet printhead with a plurality of nozzles to eject a liquid solution by an electrohydrodynamic method, the inkjet printhead comprising:
a first electrode (24) formed for each of the plurality of nozzles (16, 16’, 116, 116’) [Fig. 2], and applied with a voltage (V) [Fig. 2] for ejecting the liquid solution by the electrohydrodynamic method or connected to ground;
Tse does not disclose a first voltage controller configured to apply the voltage to the first electrode; and a first voltage controller configured to apply the voltage to the first electrode; and a controller configured to control the first electrode to be connected to ground or applied with the voltage from the first voltage controller, wherein, upon ejecting the liquid solution selectively from among the plurality of nozzles, the controller controls the first electrode of the nozzle, which is selected to eject the liquid solution, to be connected to the first voltage controller and applied with the voltage from the first voltage controller, and controls the first electrode of the nozzle, which is adjacent to the nozzle selected to eject the liquid solution and is selected not to eject the liquid solution, to be connected to ground.
However, Furukawa teaches and a first voltage controller (33) [Para. 0067] configured to apply the voltage to the first electrode; and a controller (33) [Para. 0067] configured to control the first electrode to be connected to ground or applied with the voltage from the first voltage controller, wherein, upon ejecting the liquid solution selectively from among the plurality of nozzles, the controller controls the first electrode of the nozzle, which is selected to eject the liquid solution, to be connected to the first voltage controller and applied with the voltage from the first voltage controller, and controls the first electrode of the nozzle, which is adjacent to the nozzle selected to eject the liquid solution and is selected not to eject the liquid solution, to be connected to [Para. 0067, See also Para. 0127].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inkjet printhead with a controller to apply a voltage to the first electrode in order to control the voltage value at the time of ejection and non-ejection of ink.
With regard to claim 18, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 17, and Furukawa also disclose wherein, upon ejecting the liquid solution selectively from among the plurality of nozzles, the controller controls the first electrode of the nozzle, which is selected to eject the liquid solution, to be connected to the first voltage controller and applied with the voltage from the first voltage controller, and controls the first electrodes of the other nozzles, which are selected not to eject the liquid solution, to be connected to ground [Para. 0127].
With regard to claim 19, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 17, and Furukawa also discloses further comprising a nozzle layer formed with a plurality of nozzle chambers to store ink supplied for each nozzle and a nozzle hole on a bottom of the nozzle chamber to eject a liquid solution [Fig. 1A], wherein the first electrode is formed on an inner surface of the nozzle chamber [Fig. 1A].
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse (WO 2021/257998) in view of Furukawa (US 2007/0013750) as applied to claims 2 and 19 above, and further in view of Sugahara (US 2007/0024669).
With regard to claims 3 and 20, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and 19, respectively, but does not disclose wherein a distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is greater than a distance between a bottom of the nozzle and a subject.
However, Suguhara teaches a distance between a first electrode (18) and a second electrode (15) is greater than a distance between a bottom of a nozzle (13) and a subject (2). [Fig. 4]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electrodes to have a distance from each other greater than a distance between a bottom of the nozzle and a subject so that the electric field interference between ejection ports can be prevented from occurring.
With regard to claim 8, Tse’s modified inkjet printhead discloses all the limitations of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein a distance between a bottom of the nozzle and the second electrode is greater than a distance between the bottom of the nozzle and a subject.
However, Sugahara teaches a distance between a bottom of the nozzle (13) and the second electrode (18) is greater than a distance between the bottom of the nozzle and a subject (2) [Fig. 4].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the distance between a bottom of the nozzle and the second electrode to be greater than a distance between the bottom of the nozzle and a subject so that the electric field interference between ejection ports can be prevented from occurring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7, 9-10, 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5 are objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “wherein a groove is recessed downwards on a top surface of the nozzle layer, and the second electrode is formed inside the groove.”
Claim 7 is objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “wherein a bottom of the nozzle layer protrudes to form a protruding portion for each nozzle, a nozzle hole is formed at a bottom of the protruding portion, and the second electrode is formed on a recessed portion between the protruding portions.”
Claim 9 is objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “wherein a groove is recessed upwards on a bottom surface of the nozzle layer, and the second electrode is formed inside the groove.”
Claim 10 is objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “a blocking unit formed of an insulator and covering the groove to block the second electrode from being exposed to an outside of the groove.”
Claims 13-14 are objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “wherein a groove is recessed downwards on a top surface of the spacing layer, and the second electrode is formed inside the groove.”
Claims 15-16 are objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “a second nozzle layer formed on the first nozzle layer, formed with a plurality of communication chambers communicating with the nozzle chambers, and comprising a third electrode formed on an inner surface of the communication chamber and receiving a voltage for ejecting a liquid solution by an electrohydrodynamic method.”
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
/TRACEY M MCMILLION/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853