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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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 “a plurality of first nozzle rows each including a plurality of first nozzle holes for ejecting the liquid arranged at first distances in a nozzle hole arrangement direction are arranged” in lines 6-9. It is uncertain whether “arranged at” refers to the “plurality of first nozzle rows” or the “plurality of first nozzle holes.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of first nozzle rows each including a plurality of first nozzle holes for ejecting the liquid arranged at first distances in a nozzle hole arrangement direction are arranged” in lines 6-9. The claim fails to recite a reference to determine the “first distances.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “second distances” in lines 10-11. The claim fails to recite a reference the determine the “second distances.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second distance" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first distance" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first nozzle hole" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a length” in line 2. The “length” must be a length “in which the first nozzle holes are provided,” i.e., all the first holes. It is uncertain what length between all the nozzles is being defined.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first nozzle hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “different hole diameters from the first nozzle holes” in line 3. Claims 1 and 6 fail to define a diameter of the first nozzle holes. The reference to hole diameters of the first nozzle holes is uncertain.
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 indefiniteness.
Limited time for search and examination of each application precludes a complete editorial review. Applicant is required the review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 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 got longitudinal axis 200) each including a plurality of first nozzle holes 104 for ejecting the liquid arranged at first distances (distance between holes 104 along the diagonal) in a nozzle hole arrangement direction (diagonal direction) are arranged,
the plurality of first nozzle rows is arranged at second distances (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);
wherein the first distance is equal to or more than ten times a hole diameter of the first nozzle hole (distance along the diagonal where the distance between holes 104 is equal to more than then times the hole diameters);
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 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, rows at least at approximately 45 degrees to the vertical in figure 1; referred to hererin after as diagonal) each including a plurality of first nozzle holes 29 for ejecting the liquid arranged at first distances (distance between holes 29 along the diagonal) in a nozzle hole arrangement direction (diagonal direction) are arranged,
the plurality of first nozzle rows is arranged at second distances (distances between rows along the vertical axis in figure 1) in a nozzle row arrangement direction (direction along the vertical axis in figure 1) 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 29 along the vertical axis as compared to the two consecutive holes 29 along the diagonal);
wherein in the ejection surface, second nozzle holes 30, 31 having different hole diameters from the first nozzle holes are placed outside of a formation area of the 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 first nozzle holes (inherent because holes 30, 31 are larger than holes 29).
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) 3-5 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.
Conclusion
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