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 of Group I (claims 1-17), Species A (Fig.1) in the reply filed on 12/28/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant further indicated that claims 1-17 reads of elected species A, fig.1. However, examiner noted the following:
- claim 8 claims “… the weight is positioned on a base (33a) provided on a main surface of the thin plate portion (33)” which reads on the non-elected species I, Fig.16.
- claim 9 claims “wherein the spring portion comprises a projection portion (31c) on a main surface of the nozzle side…” which reads on the non-elected species J, Fig.17.
- claim 12 claims “a support member (50b fig.14) for supporting the nozzle plate portion …” which reads on the non-elected species D, Fig.14.
- claim 14 claims “…the vibration plate (30) comprises a beam (14) on a main surface of the thin plate portion (33) on the storage space (70) side, and a pillar (13) on a main surface of the thin plate portion (33) on the ink chamber side …” which reads on the non-elected species K, Fig.18.
Thus, claims 8, 9,12,13,14,18-20 are withdrawn. Office action on the merits of claims 1-7,10,11,15-17 is shown below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2023 and 12/30/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US 6,666,547).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al teaches an inkjet head (fig.4) characterized in that the inkjet head comprises a nozzle plate portion (4 fig.4) on which a nozzle (9 fig.4) for ejecting droplets is formed, a vibration plate (13,12’ figs.3,4) disposed opposite to an inlet of the nozzle (9 fig.4), a weight (12 fig.4) disposed in contact with the vibration plate (13,12’), and an actuator (2,7 fig.4) in contact with the weight (12), wherein the actuator (2,7) is driven by a drive signal to fly the weight (12) to eject ink in the ink chamber (8) formed between the nozzle plate portion (4) and the vibration plate (13,12’) from the nozzle (9), and
wherein a storage space (space in 3 containing 2 in fig.4) in which the actuator (2,7 fig.4) is disposed is configured to be separated from the ink chamber (8) by the vibration plate (13,12’).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi et al further teaches wherein the ink chamber (8 fig.4) comprises an ejection region (“ejection region” in figure below, fig.4) comprising the inlet of the nozzle (9), and
a reservoir region (“reservoir region” in figure below, fig.4) adjacent to the ejection region (“ejection region”), and a gap between the nozzle plate portion (4) and the vibration plate (13,12’) is smaller in the ejection region than in the reservoir region (“reservoir region”).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi et al further teaches the gap in the ejection region (“ejection region” in figure above, fig.4) has a predetermined dimension.
Takahashi et al does not explicitly teaches wherein the gap is in a range of 1 μm or more to 50 μm or less.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the gap to be in the claimed range for example in order to provide optimum flow of fluid in the chamber based on the design of the printhead, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi et al further teaches ejecting ink having predetermined viscosity (figs.1,4,8).
Takahashi et al does not explicitly teaches wherein viscosity of the ink is in a range of 20 mPa.Math.s or more.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use ink having the claimed range of viscosity for instance in order to provide fluid/ink having optimal fluid characteristics based on the design of the printhead, type of drying system, and/or the type of image, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi et al further teaches wherein the vibration plate (13,12’ figs.3,4) is composed of a laminated structure of a beam-shaped spring portion (12’) and a thin plate portion (13), and the thin plate portion is composed of a flexible sheet (figs.3-5).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi et al further teaches wherein a portion of the spring portion (12’ figs.3,4) facing the inlet of the nozzle (9) is formed to be wide (figs.3,4. Note that fig.4 of Takahashi et al teaches spring portion 12’ facing inlet of nozzle 9 as similarly shown in the elected invention of fig.1 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi et al further teaches a plurality of combinations of the actuator (2,7 figs.2-4) and the weight (12), and a spacer portion (5) disposed between the nozzle plate portion (4) and the vibration plate (13,12’), wherein the spacer portion (5) is provided between the plurality of adjacent actuators (2,7) (figs.2-4. In figs.7,8 the spacer portion can be 29, vibration plate 30, nozzle plate 23).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi et al substantially teaches the claimed invention including wherein the spacer portion (5 figs.2-4) is composed of preferred material fixed to the nozzle plate (14) portion and the vibration plate (13,12’).
Takahashi et al does not explicitly teaches wherein the spacer portion is composed of a cured product of a photosensitive film resist.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the spacer portion from such photosensitive film resist material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for intended use for instance to facilitate manufacturing steps of the inkjet head. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 17, Takahashi et al further teaches a printing device comprising the inkjet head according to claim 1 and a drive control unit driving the inkjet head (figs.4,6-8 col.5 lines 31-34 teaches printing device including controlling element that supply drive signals to the actuators of the printhead through flexible cable 35).
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.
Claims 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 6,666,547) in view of Nakatani et al. (WO 2019/230816).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi et al further substantially teaches the claimed invention including the vibration plate (13,12’ figs.3,4), ink supplied to ink chamber (8) via the ink supply means (figs.4,7,8).
Takahashi et al does not explicitly teaches wherein an ink supply hole is formed through the vibration plate.
However, Nakatani et al teaches similar inkjet head (figs.1-3) including an ink supply hole (7e figs.1-4) formed through the vibration plate (7), and the ink is supplied to the ink chamber (82 figs.5,6,8) via the ink supply hole (7e).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form such ink supply hole through the vibration plate in the inkjet head of Takahashi et al based on the teachings of Nakatani et al for instance to improve horizontal compactness of the printhead by providing ink supply elements vertically.
Regarding claim 16, Takahashi et al further teaches wherein the nozzle plate portion (4 fig.4; 23 figs.7,8 of Takahashi et al; 8T figs.1-3,5,6,8 of Nakatani et al) comprises a discharge flow path (figs.4,7,8 of Takahashi et al; 81,82 figs.1-3,5,6,8 of Nakatani et al) for the ink branched from the nozzle (9 figs.4; 22 figs.7,8 of Takahashi et al; 83 figs.1-3,5,6,8 of Nakatani et al) in the nozzle plate portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853