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) 1-19 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I [claims 1-10] in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/16/2025.
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) 1-2, 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20150004133) in view of Kusunoki (U.S. Pub. 2005/0099452)
Regarding claims 1, 10, a nozzle head comprising: a plate portion (121) having a through hole (nozzles); a droplet discharging nozzle (123) portion located corresponding to the through hole in the plate portion, the droplet discharging nozzle portion including a plurality of droplet discharging nozzles discharging droplets by an electrostatic discharging method (Paragraph 0006)
A pseudo-nozzle portion (122) located around the droplet discharging nozzle portion in the plate portion and including a plurality of pseudo-nozzles whose tips are blocked (Figures 1-10; Abstract; Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0028-0033)
Kusunoki discloses it is known in the art wherein the droplet discharging nozzle and pseudo-nozzle has a tapered shape and an inner diameter of an opening at a top end of each droplet discharging nozzle is 50 µm or less (Paragraphs 0047-0053)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kusunoki into the device of Choi, for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of a non-uniform density or deterioration in image quality
Regarding claim 2, the plurality of droplet discharging nozzles are arranged in line in a first direction; and the pseudo-nozzle portion is arranged on both sides of the droplet discharging nozzle portion in the first direction (Figures 1-10; Abstract; Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0028-0033)
Regarding claim 5, a first distance between adjacent droplet discharging nozzles (123) is the same as a second distance between adjacent pseudo-nozzles (122) (Figure 1)
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20150004133) as modified by Kusunoki (U.S. Pub. 0099452) and further in view of Ogawa (U.S. Pub. 2018/0304629)
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of pseudo-nozzles are arranged over the entire range of 1 mm to 5 mm toward the first direction from the outermost pseudo-nozzle. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a plurality of pseudo-nozzles are arranged over the entire range of 1 mm to 5 mm toward the first direction from the outermost pseudo-nozzle, 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
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate a plurality of pseudo-nozzles are arranged over the entire range of 1 mm to 5 mm toward the first direction from the outermost pseudo-nozzle, for the purpose of finely controlling the discharge amount of ink by the discharging ink nozzles
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa discloses pseudo-nozzle portion (22, 23, 24) includes five or more pseudo-nozzles on both sides of the droplet discharging nozzle portion (10) in the first direction [scanning direction] (Figures 1, 8; Paragraphs 0020-0022, 0025-0027)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Ogawa into the device of Choi, for the purpose of suppressing deviation of a landing position on a medium on which a liquid is discharged
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa disclose the plurality of droplet discharging nozzles (10) are arranged in the first direction (scanning direction) and in a second direction (conveying direction) intersecting the first direction; and the pseudo-nozzle portion (22,23,24) is arranged to surround the droplet discharging nozzle portion (Figures 1, 8; Paragraphs 0020-0022, 0025-0027)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Ogawa into the device of Choi, for the purpose of suppressing deviation of a landing position on a medium on which a liquid is discharged
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa discloses the pseudo-nozzles are arranged in line on both sides in the first direction and on both sides in the second direction corresponding to each of the droplet discharging nozzles arranged outside of the plurality of droplet discharging nozzles; and the number of the pseudo-nozzles per row arranged on one side in the first direction and on one side in the second direction is 2 or more and 30 or less (Figures 1, 8; Paragraphs 0020-0022, 0025-0027)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Ogawa into the device of Choi, for the purpose of suppressing deviation of a landing position on a medium on which a liquid is discharged
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa discloses pseudo-nozzle has a frame shape (Figure 8 discloses pseudo-nozzles surrounding the discharging nozzles in a frame shape)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
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 JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 X. 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.
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights