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 Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The response filed on June 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “cause a collision with an object in a form of the droplets” in lines 3-4. The recitation appears to be idiomatically incorrect. It is uncertain how “in a form of the droplets” describes “cause a collision with an object.” It does not appear to make sense.
The term “adjacent” in claim 1 (two occurrences) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “adjacent” is defined as: near. Dictionary.com. The interpretation of what constitutes near requires a subjective determination. What may be considered near to one of ordinary skill in the art may not be considered near to another of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “adjacent first nozzle holes of the plurality of first nozzle holes in each first nozzle row are spaced apart by a first distance” in lines 8-9. It is uncertain which “adjacent first nozzle holes” are limited to the “first distance.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “adjacent first nozzle rows of the plurality of firs nozzle roes are spaced apart by a second distance” in lines 11-12. It is uncertain which “adjacent first nozzle rows” are limited to the “second distance.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “adjacent first nozzle rows of the plurality of firs nozzle roes are spaced apart by a second distance” in lines 11-12. The distance between two parallel lines (adjacent first nozzle rows) can be measured along virtually an infinite number of lines (nozzle row arrangement direction) between two parallel lines. All of those lines would cross the two parallel lines. Therefore, it is uncertain which second distance or which nozzle row arrangement direction is being limited.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a length” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of at least one of the “second distances” recited in claim 1. The fails to define what the length defines. Is the length of length between holes? If so, between which holes?
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a length” in line 3. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “first distance” recited in claim 1. The fails to define what the length defines. Is the length of length between holes? If so, between which holes? If the nozzle row arrangement direction is not perpendicular to the nozzle hole arrangement direction, a direction orthogonal to the nozzle row arrangement direction may not cross any holes. Claim 1 is not limited to the nozzle row arrangement direction being perpendicular to the nozzle hole arrangement direction.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a rate of a formation area of the plurality of first nozzle holes to an area of the ejection surface is qual to or lower than 1%. The claim defines: (a rate of a formation area)/(an area of the ejection surface) ≤ 0.01. The numerator is a rate expression. The denominator is an area expression. The numerator and denominator define different parameters. Therefore, any unit can be chosen for each of the numerator and the denominator to satisfy the mathematical expression. It is uncertain what is being limited by the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “through closest holes” in lines 2-3. They appear to be a double inclusion of at least some of the plurality of first nozzle holes” recited in claim 1. Additionally, the claim fails to define a reference to determine “closest,” i.e., what is closest to what. The recitation “closest holes in each of the adjacent first nozzle rows” indicates that each of the adjacent first nozzle rows has closest holes.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1 and 2 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tabor et al. (2023/0311136).
Tabor et al. disclose a liquid ejection device comprising an ejector 102 configured to eject a liquid (water; paragraph 0065) in a continuous flow from an ejection surface (surface of body 102) of the ejector, form the continuous flow into droplets, and cause a collision with an object in a form of the droplets, wherein,
in the ejection surface, a plurality of first nozzle rows (see figures 1 and 2, rows at an angle/diagonal to longitudinal axis 200) is arranged, each first nozzle row of the plurality of first nozzle rows includes a plurality of first nozzle holes 104 for ejecting the liquid,
adjacent first nozzle holes (holes along the diagonal) of the plurality of first nozzle holes in each first nozzle row are spaced apart by a first distance (distance between holes 104 along the diagonal) in a nozzle hole arrangement direction (diagonal direction),
the plurality of first nozzle rows is arranged such that adjacent first nozzle rows of the plurality of first nozzle rows are spaced apart by a second distance (distances between rows along the longitudinal axis 200) in a nozzle row arrangement direction (direction of longitudinal axis 200) crossing the nozzle hole arrangement direction, and
the second distance is equal to or more than twice the first distance (distance between the 10th hole 104 along longitudinal axis 200 as compared to the two consecutive holes 104 along the diagonal; “adjacent” is not limited to consecutive/immediately adjacent rows or consecutive/immediately adjacent nozzles in each row);
wherein the first distance is equal to or more than ten times a hole diameter of each first nozzle hole (distance along the diagonal where the distance between holes 104 is equal to more than then times the hole diameters) of the plurality of first nozzle holes.
In the alternative, the middle and outboard rows along axis 200 can be considered first nozzle rows. The claim does not preclude the presence of the staggered rows because “adjacent” is limited to near.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chance et al. (3,895,449).
Chance et al. disclose a liquid ejection device comprising an ejector 28 configured to eject a liquid (the recitation “configured to” mere requires some undefined configuration that has the capability to perform the function; the holes in Chance et al. have the capability to eject liquid by their mere size and existence) in a continuous flow from an ejection surface (surface of plate 28) of the ejector, form the continuous flow into droplets, and cause a collision with an object in a form of the droplets, wherein,
in the ejection surface, a plurality of first nozzle rows (see figures 1, each row is in the vertical direction in figure 1) is arranged, each first nozzle row of the plurality of nozzle rows includes a plurality of first nozzle holes 29 for ejecting the liquid,
adjacent first nozzle holes of the plurality of first nozzle holes in each first nozzle row are spaced apart by a first distance (distance between holes 29 along the vertical) in a nozzle hole arrangement direction (vertical direction),
the plurality of first nozzle rows is arranged such that adjacent first nozzle rows of the plurality of first nozzle rows are spaced by a second distance (distances between rows along the horizontal in figure 1) in a nozzle row arrangement direction (direction along the horizontal in figure 1) crossing the nozzle hole arrangement direction, and
the second distance is equal to (the vertical distance between holes is shown as being equal to the horizontal distance between holes in figure 1) or more than twice the first distance;
wherein in the ejection surface, second nozzle holes 30, 31 having different hole diameters from hole diameters of the plurality of first nozzle holes are placed outside of a formation area of the plurality of first nozzle holes as seen from an ejection direction of the liquid;
wherein a flow rate of the liquid per unit time ejected from the second nozzle holes is higher than a flow rate of the liquid per unit time ejected from the plurality of first nozzle holes (inherent because holes 30, 31 are larger than holes 29);
wherein the nozzle row arrangement direction is along an axis (horizontal axis) passing through closest holes in each of the adjacent first nozzle rows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3-5 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabor et al. (2023/0311136).
Regarding claim 3, Tabor et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the ratio of the length between holes in the nozzle row arrangement direction to a length between holes in the orthogonal direction thereof being equal to or larger than 1.5. Tabor et al. disclose, on paragraph 0078, 2-10 columns along the longitudinal axis 200. The ratio of 1.5 or larger is mere optimization of the hole arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a ration of 1.5 or greater in the device of Tabor et al. for spray cover optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Tabor et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a rate of a formation area of the first nozzle holes to an area of the ejection surface being equal to or lower than 1%. Tabor et al. discloses various hole diameters in paragraph 0079. Providing a rate equal to or lower than 1% is mere optimization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a rate equal to or lower than 1% to optimize spray coverage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Tabor et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a hole diameter of the first nozzle hole being equal to or smaller than 150 micrometers. Tabor et al. discloses various hole diameters in paragraph 0079. Providing a diameter of 150 micrometers or smaller is mere optimization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a hole diameter of 150 micrometers or less to optimize spray pattern, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Tabor et al., Applicant appears to be reading Tabor et al. differently from the Office action. The Office action considers each row to be on the diagonal of axis 200. Additionally, adjacent is limited to near. Finally, even if the rows are along axis 200, the second distance being equal to the first distance would be satisfied for claim 1.
Regarding Chance et al., in the prior Office action, the adjacent rows are the 10th hole 29 along the vertical axis. The term adjacent is limited to near and does not preclude intervening rows. In the current Office action, the rows are along the vertical. Figure 1 shows the horizontal spacing of the holes being equal to the vertical spacing. Therefore, the second distance being equal to the first distance of claim 1 is disclosed by Chance et al.
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 CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 O 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
Prosecution Insights