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 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Oshima discloses power amplifiers 250/260 in the parallel wiring, and therefore does not disclose the claimed parallel wirings because “the parallel wiring of claim 1 is not active circuitry but instead passive wiring that includes resistance and forms a time constant RC circuit with the load capacitance of the piezoelectric element” (page 5 of remarks). However, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., passive wirings only / forming an RC circuit with the load capacitance) are not recited in the rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While Oshima does disclose power amplifiers 250/260, the power amplifiers are disposed within parallel wiring that serves to shift a phase of the pulse signal transmitted by each of the parallel wirings (see cited Fig. 9). The fact that Oshima comprises power amplifiers does not preclude Oshima from also disclosing the claimed parallel wirings, since the claimed parallel wirings of claim 1 are not recited as being passive.
With regards to newly presented claim 10, Examiner recognizes that the claimed phase controller that includes “a passive wiring path.” To this end, please see the newly applied rejection(s) in view of both Oshima et al. and Horvath. Horvath teach the usefulness of providing a plurality of parallel wirings in the driver circuitry.
Applicant also argues that Oshima does not produce the claimed phase shift using an RC phase shift (page 5 of remarks). However, claim 1 does not contain language that requires RC phase shifting.
Applicant also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have obtained the claimed invention in using an RC delay circuit, taught by Shibata, as Oshima’s delay circuit, because “Shibata neither shifts the phase based on a noise period T nor relates to capacitive loading” (page 7 of remarks). However, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2141.01(a). In this case, both Oshima and Shibata are from the same specific field of driving inkjet printing actuators. Moreover, because Oshima only generally disclose the use of a delay circuit on the parallel wiring, an artisan would have surely consulted Shibata to determine the manner which the delay circuit may be constructed.
In light of the above, Examiner has found no reason to withdraw the previously applied rejection(s).
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.
(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) 1-2, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as anticipated by Oshima et al. (US 2012/0182339 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oshima et al. in view of Horvath (US 2018/0351546 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10:
Oshima et al. disclose an inkjet apparatus comprising:
a piezoelectric element (104) that is driven by a pulse signal (COM) and applies pressure to a pressure chamber (102) containing ink (Fig. 2); and
a phase controller (Fig. 9) that includes N parallel wirings (through the amplifiers 250) provided in parallel with each other (Fig. 9), where N is an integer more than or equal to 2 (Fig. 9), and shifts a phase of the pulse signal transmitted by each of the N parallel wirings (via delay 235: paragraphs 78-79 & Fig. 9).
In an alternative viewpoint, Oshima et al. do not expressly disclose a phase controller.
In this case, Horvath discloses a phase controller that avoids high amplitude ringing for low capacitive loads, the phase controller comprising:
N parallel wirings provided in parallel with each other (at least the wiring t: paragraph 21 & Fig. 2), where N is an integer more than or equal to 2 (Fig. 2), each of the N parallel wirings constituting a passive wiring path (Fig. 2), and shifts a phase of the pulse signal transmitted by each of the N parallel wirings (via delays 205: paragraph 21 & Fig. 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been at least obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Oshima et al.’s inkjet apparatus to include a phase controller having N parallel wirings, such as taught by Horvath et al.
Regarding claim 2:
Oshima et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Horvath also disclose that at least one resistance value among resistance values of the N parallel wirings is different from another resistance value (paragraph 21 & Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6:
Oshima et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the N parallel wirings form a parallel circuit (Fig. 9), and the parallel circuit is connected in series to the piezoelectric element (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8:
Oshima et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the inkjet apparatus is comprised in a printer (10: Fig. 1), the printer further comprising:
a movement device (carriage 22) that moves a printing target relative to the inkjet apparatus (paragraph 42 & Fig. 1); and
a controller (printer control circuit 50) that controls the inkjet apparatus and the movement device (paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 9:
Oshima et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Horvath also disclose that N is an integer greater than or equal to 3 (paragraph 21 & Fig. 2).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshima et al. (US 2012/0182339 A1) in view of Shibata et al. (US 2015/0314597 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Oshima et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose that at least one resistance value among resistance values of the N parallel wirings is different from another resistance value.
However, Oshima et al. do disclose that at least one delay circuit (235) is provided on one of the N parallel wirings (Fig. 9).
Further, Shibata et al. teach that a delay circuit (105) may comprise a CR circuit including a resistance and capacitance (paragraph 23).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form Oshima et al.’s delay circuit as a CR circuit, as suggested by Shibata et al. In doing so, at least one resistance value among resistance values of the Oshima et al.’s N parallel wirings is different from another resistance value.
Regarding claim 3:
Oshima et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 2, and Oshima et al. also disclose that the resistance values of the N parallel wirings are set to shift phases of pulse signals transmitted by the N parallel wirings to be by 360°/N (paragraphs 78-79).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights