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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-7 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the description in the specification, such as in paragraphs [0029]-[0032] of the specification, explains that a semicircular end is a limiting case of rounded corners (“radius of curvature R is set to R = W x 0.5”). The applicant argues that claims 2 & 3 cover both rounded corners and semicircular ends as part of he recited mathematical relationships therein. Further the applicant argues that Species B is identified as a mathematical subset of Species A and therefore they should be examined together. This is not found persuasive because Species B (e.g. Claims 8-12) does not include an elongated hole with rounded corners rather an elongated hole with semicircular ends. There are no further limiting claim limitations in Species B (e.g. claims 8-12) directed toward rounded corners. Further the mathematical relationships in claims 2, 3, 14, and 15, do not seem to read such that semicircular ends are covered in the mathematical relationships. The argument that Species B (e.g. claims 8-12) is a mathematical subset of Species A is further found not to be persuasive because Species B requires the Examiner to search different main group/subgroup combinations and/or use different search terms that are not necessary for Species A.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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(s) 1, 5-6, 13, 16-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miura (JP 2010012756 A) (hereinafter Miura).
Regarding Claim 1, Miura teaches a liquid discharge head (10, Figs. 1 and 7) [Abstract, Best-Mode], comprising: a base plate (15, Figs. 1 and 7) having an elongated hole (8/16, Figs. 1 and 7) therein, the elongated hole (8/16) extending lengthwise in a first direction and laterally in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction a corner portion (see Fig. 7) of the elongated hole (8/16) proximate to an end of the elongated hole (8/16) in the first direction being rounded [Abstract, Best-Mode, see also Figs. 1 and 7]; and a first piezoelectric actuator (12, Figs. 1 and 7) on the base plate (15) at a position adjacent to the elongated hole (8/16) in the second direction, the first piezoelectric actuator (12) including a plurality of pressure chambers (6, Fig. 1) disposed along the first direction [Best-Mode].
Regarding Claim 5, Miura teaches the liquid discharge head (10), further comprising: a second piezoelectric actuator (12) on the base plate (15) at a position adjacent to the elongated hole (8/16) in the second direction, the elongated hole (8/16) being between the first piezoelectric actuator (12) and the second piezoelectric actuator (12) in the second direction, the second piezoelectric actuator (12) including a plurality of pressure chambers (6) disposed along the first direction [Best-Mode].
Regarding Claim 6, Miura teaches the liquid discharge head (10), wherein the elongated hole (8/16) is a supply port through which liquid is supplied to the plurality of pressure chambers (6) of the first and second piezoelectric actuators (12) [Best-Mode].
Regarding Claim 13, Miura teaches a liquid discharge device (see Fig. 9), comprising: a liquid supply source (95, Fig. 9) [Best-Mode]; and a liquid discharge head (10/94, Figs. 1, 7, and 10) including: a base plate (15, Figs. 1 and 7) having an elongated hole (8/16, Figs. 1 and 7) therein, the elongated hole (8/16) extending lengthwise in a first direction and laterally in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction a corner portion (see Fig. 7) of the elongated hole (8/16) proximate to an end of the elongated hole (8/16) in the first direction being rounded [Abstract, Best-Mode, see also Figs. 1 and 7]; and a first piezoelectric actuator (12, Figs. 1 and 7) on the base plate (15) at a position adjacent to the elongated hole (8/16) in the second direction, the first piezoelectric actuator (12) including a plurality of pressure chambers (6, Fig. 1) disposed along the first direction [Best-Mode], wherein the elongated hole (8/16) is fluidly connected to the liquid supply source (95) [Best-Mode].
Regarding Claim 16, Miura teaches the liquid discharge device (see Fig. 9), further comprising: a second piezoelectric actuator (12) on the base plate (15) at a position adjacent to the elongated hole (8/16) in the second direction, the elongated hole (8/16) being between the first piezoelectric actuator (12) and the second piezoelectric actuator (12) in the second direction, the second piezoelectric actuator (12) including a plurality of pressure chambers (6) disposed along the first direction [Best-Mode].
Regarding Claim 17, Miura teaches the liquid discharge device (see Fig. 9), wherein the elongated hole (8/16) is a supply port through which liquid is supplied to the plurality of pressure chambers (6) of the first and second piezoelectric actuators (12) [Best-Mode].
Regarding Claim 19, Miura teaches the liquid discharge device (see Fig. 9), further comprising: a sheet conveyance unit (104, 105, 111, Fig. 10) configured to convey a sheet to a position facing the liquid discharge head (10/94) [Best-Mode].
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) 4, 7, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura. (JP 2010012756 A) (hereinafter Miura) in view of Kobayashi et al. (9,144,967) (Kobayashi et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Miura teaches the liquid discharge head (10) [Abstract, Best-Mode].
Miura fails to teach wherein the first piezoelectric actuator includes a plurality of air chambers disposed alternately with the plurality of pressure chambers.
Kobayashi et al. teaches wherein the first piezoelectric actuator includes a plurality of air chambers disposed alternately with the plurality of pressure chambers [Column 6 lines 41-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first piezoelectric actuator includes a plurality of air chambers disposed alternately with the plurality of pressure chambers as taught by Miura as modified by Kobayashi et al. for the purposes of minimizing a difference in liquid discharge characteristics [Kobayashi et al., Column 6 lines 41-51].
Regarding Claim 7, Miura teaches the liquid discharge head (10) [Abstract, Best-Mode].
Miura further teaches that the elongated hole has a width and that the corner portion has a curvature [see Fig. 7 reproduced below].
[AltContent: textbox (Curvature of the corner p0rtion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Width)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miura fails to explicitly teach wherein, when a width of the elongated hole in second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion is equal to W x 0.5 and the end of the elongated hole is semicircular.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a width of the elongated hole in second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion is equal to W x 0.5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 216 (CCPA 1980). The motivation to combine the teachings of Miura with the holdings of In re Boesch is for the purposes of improving the flowability of ink [Miura, Best-Mode].
Kobayashi et al. teaches the end of the elongated hole is semicircular [see Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the end of the elongated hole is semicircular as taught by Miura as modified by Kobayashi for the purposes of minimizing a difference in liquid discharge characteristics [Kobayashi et al., Column 6 lines 41-51].
Regarding Claim 18, Miura teaches the liquid discharge device (see Fig. 9) [Abstract, Best-Mode].
Miura further teaches that the elongated hole has a width and that the corner portion has a curvature [see Fig. 7 reproduced below].
[AltContent: textbox (Curvature of the corner p0rtion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Width)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miura fails to explicitly teach wherein, when a width of the elongated hole in second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion is equal to W x 0.5 and the end of the elongated hole is semicircular.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a width of the elongated hole in second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion is equal to W x 0.5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 216 (CCPA 1980). The motivation to combine the teachings of Miura with the holdings of In re Boesch is for the purposes of improving the flowability of ink [Miura, Best-Mode].
Kobayashi et al. teaches the end of the elongated hole is semicircular [see Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the end of the elongated hole is semicircular as taught by Miura as modified by Kobayashi for the purposes of minimizing a difference in liquid discharge characteristics [Kobayashi et al., Column 6 lines 41-51].
Regarding Claim 20, Miura teaches the liquid discharge device (see Fig. 9) [Best-Mode].
Miura fails to teach wherein the first piezoelectric actuator includes a plurality of air chambers disposed alternately with the plurality of pressure chambers.
Kobayashi et al. teaches wherein the first piezoelectric actuator includes a plurality of air chambers disposed alternately with the plurality of pressure chambers [Column 6 lines 41-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first piezoelectric actuator includes a plurality of air chambers disposed alternately with the plurality of pressure chambers as taught by Miura as modified by Kobayashi et al. for the purposes of minimizing a difference in liquid discharge characteristics [Kobayashi et al., Column 6 lines 41-51].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 2 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid discharge head that includes wherein, when a width of an elongated hole in a second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion satisfies the relationship: W x 0.2 ± (W x 0.2 x 0.25) ≤ R ≤ W x 0.5 ± (W x 0.5 x 0.25). It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 3 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid discharge head that includes wherein, when a width of the elongated hole in second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion satisfies the relationship W x 0.2 ≤ R ≤ W x 0.5. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 14 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid discharge device that includes wherein, when a width of an elongated hole in a second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion satisfies the relationship: W x 0.2 ± (W x 0.2 x 0.25) ≤ R ≤ W x 0.5 ± (W x 0.5 x 0.25). It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 15 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid discharge device that includes wherein, when a width of the elongated hole in second direction is a value W, the radius of curvature R of the corner portion satisfies the relationship W x 0.2 ≤ R ≤ W x 0.5. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, 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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853