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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/1/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-19, 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) method steps of receiving a nominal waveform, receiving a target, adjusting waveform parameters, and outputting an adjusted waveform. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of these steps may be performed in the human mind. With regards to claim 26, the inclusion of a controller merely recites a generic computer component for performing the process, but does not preclude the process from practically being performed in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the controller does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing any of the claimed steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the concepts of adjusting waveform parameters to achieve a target variable is a well-understood, routine, and conventional process in the art. Please note that Applicant’s specification specifically excludes the application of the adjusted drive waveform to the droplet ejection apparatus from this step of “outputting the adjusted waveform” (see page 11 of specification); therefore this step fails to improve the functioning of the droplet ejection apparatus, or any other computer function.
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 3, 7, 10, 12-18, and 21 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.
In view of the indefiniteness described below, Examiner has applied prior art to the claimed inventions as best understood.
Regarding claim 3:
Parent claim 1 includes a step of “adjusting one or more waveform parameters,” and claim 3 then attempts to further define the one or more waveform parameters. While the listing of waveform parameters is clear enough, it is not clear whether claim 3 requires the adjusting step to perform adjustment on each of the listed parameters. Specifically, it is not clear whether an artisan infringes on the claim 3 invention by performing an adjustment of one of the listed waveform parameters, or if infringement occurs only upon adjustment of each of the listed waveform parameters.
Regarding claim 7:
This claim recites the limitation "the waveform parameter." While parent claim 4 includes “one or more waveform parameters,” the claims have not identified any particular waveform parameter of the one or more waveform parameters. Is “the waveform parameter” one that has been selected from the “one or more waveform parameters”? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Assuming that “the waveform parameter” points to “the one or more waveform parameters” from parent claim 1, it is not clear whether claim 7 requires the adjusting step to perform adjustment on each of the listed parameters. Specifically, it is not clear whether an artisan infringes on the claim 7 invention by performing an adjustment of one of the listed waveform parameters, or if infringement occurs only upon adjustment of each of the listed waveform parameters.
Regarding claim 10:
This claim depends from cancelled claim 9. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indiscernible.
Regarding claim 12:
This claim recites the claim terms “the second droplet ejection pulse” and “the first droplet ejection pulse.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 13:
The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Without any such guidance from the claims and/or specification, it is unclear what range of values of the “first delay” would be included in the scope of “substantially zero.”
Regarding claim 14:
This claim recites the claim terms “the second droplet ejection pulse” (line 3 of the claim) and “the first droplet ejection pulse” (lines 4-5 of the claim) However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 15:
This claim recites the claim terms “the second droplet ejection pulse” (line 3 of the claim) and “the first droplet ejection pulse” (line 4 of the claim). However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 16:
This claim recites the limitation "the waveform parameter" (line 4 of the claim). While parent claim 4 includes “one or more waveform parameters,” the claims have not identified any particular waveform parameter of the one or more waveform parameters. Is “the waveform parameter” one that has been selected from the “one or more waveform parameters”? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the areas of the non-ejecting pulse” (line 5 of the claim).
Regarding claim 17:
This claim recites the claim terms “the areas of all positive pulses” (line 2 of the claim) and “the areas of all negative pulses” (lines 2-3 of the claim). However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 18:
This claim recites the claim terms “the first delay” (line 8 of the claim) and “the duration” (line 8 of the claim). However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Please also change the recitation of “chamber” (second to last line of the claim) to “pressure chamber” to remedy a minor antecedent basis issue.
Regarding claim 21:
This claim recites the term “the second droplet ejection pulse” (line 3 of the claim). However there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10:
This claim depends from a canceled claim, and therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of a claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 13:
This claim introduces the limitation that the first delay is “substantially zero.” However, parent claim 1 requires the inclusion of a first delay such that “the non-ejecting pulse is spaced apart from the droplet ejection pulse by a first delay.” It is Examiner’s best understanding of the invention that the claim term “substantially zero” includes zero, at least according to the adjusted drive waveform taught in Fig. 6C. Because parent claim 1 requires the inclusion of a first delay that spaces apart the non-ejecting pulse and the droplet ejection pulse, the scope of claim 1 cannot include a first delay that includes zero.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4-5, 18-21, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Shimoda (US 2015/0298455 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 26:
Shimoda discloses a droplet ejection apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a controller (4) configured to carry out a method for providing a drive waveform for the droplet ejection apparatus, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving a nominal drive waveform (“normal waveform”: Fig. 13A) comprising a droplet ejection pulse (expanding and contracting pulses P1-P2: paragraph 80) having a nominal maximum amplitude (V) and for achieving a nominal droplet velocity (“predetermined ejection speed”: paragraph 91), and a non-ejecting pulse (preliminary pulse P3) ahead of the droplet ejection pulse (Fig. 13A), wherein the non-ejecting pulse is spaced apart from the droplet ejection pulse by a first delay (Fig. 13A);
receiving a target droplet velocity and/or a target maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse (S5: Fig. 14);
adjusting one or more waveform parameters (paragraphs 98, 128) on the basis of the received target droplet velocity and/or target maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse (increased ejection amount/ejection speed) to provide an adjusted drive waveform (“corrected waveform”) to achieve at least one of the target droplet velocity and the target maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse (paragraphs 96-99); and
outputting the adjusted drive waveform (paragraphs 104, 120).
Regarding claim 4:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the droplet ejection pulse comprises a first droplet ejection pulse (P1) and a second droplet ejection pulse (P2), wherein the second droplet ejection pulse follows the first droplet ejection pulse after a second delay (Figs. 8, 13), and wherein the second droplet ejection pulse is inverted with respect to the first droplet ejection pulse (Figs. 8, 13).
Regarding claim 5:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the non-ejecting pulse is inverted with respect to the second droplet ejection pulse or with respect to the first droplet ejection pulse (Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 18:
Shimoda discloses a method for operating a droplet ejection apparatus, the droplet ejection apparatus comprising an actuator element (of piezoelectric members 39-40), the actuator element bounding in part a pressure chamber (ink chamber 36), the pressure chamber being in fluidic communication with a nozzle (42: Fig. 4), the actuator element arranged to deform so as to cause a droplet to be ejected from the nozzle (paragraph 52), the method comprising
providing an adjusted drive waveform (“corrected waveform”: Fig. 13B) to the actuator element (S5: Fig. 14),
wherein the adjusted drive waveform comprises a droplet ejection pulse (expanding and contracting pulses P1-P2: paragraph 80) and a non-ejection pulse (preliminary pulse P4) arranged ahead of the droplet ejection pulse (Fig. 13B),
wherein a first delay and/or a duration of the non-ejecting pulse is such that the non-ejecting pulse causes a priming pressure in the chamber below that which causes ejection of the droplet (paragraphs 92-93, 98-99) and the droplet ejection pulse causes the ejection of the droplet after the droplet ejection pulse further increases the priming pressure in the chamber to a droplet ejection pressure (paragraphs 94, 99).
Regarding claim 19:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 18, and also that the droplet ejection pulse comprises a first (P1) and a second (P2) droplet ejection pulse (Fig. 13B), the second droplet ejection pulse being inverted with respect to the first droplet ejection pulse (Figs. 8, 13B), and the second droplet ejection pulse following the first droplet ejection pulse (Figs. 8, 13B) and causing the ejection of the droplet by further increasing the priming pressure in the chamber to a droplet ejection pressure (paragraphs 94, 99).
Regarding claim 20:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 18, and also that the first delay is short compared to the duration of the non-ejecting pulse (Fig. 13B).
Regarding claim 21:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 18, and also that the non-ejecting pulse is inverted with respect to the droplet ejection pulse or with respect to the second droplet ejection pulse (Fig. 13B).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda (US 2015/0298455 A1) in view of Okada et al. (US 2009/0213156 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the adjusted drive waveform achieves the target droplet velocity at an adjusted maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse relative to the nominal maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse (paragraph 128).
Shimoda does not expressly disclose that the adjusted maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse is lower than the nominal maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse.
However, Okada et al. disclose a method for providing a drive waveform in which image density and may be corrected (paragraph 67) by adjusting a drive waveform so as to incrementally raise and/or lower a maximum amplitude of a droplet ejection pulse (paragraphs 68-70 & Fig. 13).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimoda’s method by providing incremental waveform adjustments in the manner taught by Okada et al.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda (US 2015/0298455 A1) in view of Goto et al. (US 2015/0072458 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the amplitude of the non-ejecting pulse of the adjusted drive waveform is lower than the maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse of the adjusted drive waveform.
However, Goto et al. disclose that an amplitude of a non-ejecting pulse (preliminary pulse 61) should be maintained lower than a maximum amplitude of a droplet ejection pulse (waveform parts 62-63) so as to prevent droplet ejection during application of the non-ejecting pulse (paragraph 13).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set the amplitude of the non-ejecting pulse to be lower than the maximum amplitude of the droplet ejection pulse in Shimoda’s adjusted drive waveform, as suggested by Goto et al.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda (US 2015/0298455 A1) in view of Hosokawa (US 2015/0097885 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Shimoda discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the droplet ejection apparatus includes a fluid for ejection (paragraph 48).
Shimoda does not expressly disclose the viscosity of the fluid for ejection.
However, Hosokawa teaches that ink is preferably ejected with a viscosity in the range of 8 to 15mPas, so as to minimize curing wrinkles and improve ejection stability (paragraph 385).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimoda’s inks to have a viscosity in the range taught by Hosokawa.
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