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 .
Priority
Foreign priority papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or 35 U.S.C. § 365(a)-(c) are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 12/21/2023 has/have been considered. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are objected to because they use the term “centreline”, however, the U.S. spelling of the term should be “centerline”.
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to because it appears to be claiming “a trailing edge” when “a trailing edge” was already introduced in the newly amended claim 1. The “a trailing edge” part of claim 11 should likely be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 5-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6299270 to Merrill (hereinafter “Merrill”).
With respect to claim 1, Merrill discloses a nozzle plate for a droplet ejection device (50), the nozzle plate comprising: a first, media facing surface (media facing surface of 50) and, opposing it, a second, back surface (back surface of 50); and at least one nozzle (60); wherein the nozzle plate further comprises a leading edge and a trailing edge (50); wherein said at least one nozzle passes through the nozzle plate from the second surface to the first surface (FIG.s 3-5); wherein said at least one nozzle comprises an exit bore having an exit bore centreline and wherein the exit bore centreline is inclined at an acute inclination angle θ to the first surface (axis 62); and wherein the exit bore centreline is inclined in a direction towards said trailing edge and is adapted such that, in use, one or more droplets are ejected from the nozzle at an acute inclination angle θ to the first surface (62 FIG.s 3D-3F).
With respect to claim 5, Merrill discloses wherein at least a portion of the exit bore along the exit bore centreline has a circular cross-section (FIG.s 3-5).
With respect to claim 6, Merrill discloses wherein the nozzle plate comprises a plurality of said nozzles (“arrays of nozzles” FIG.s 1-5).
With respect to claim 7, Merrill discloses wherein the exit bore centrelines of the plurality of said nozzles are parallel to each other (“arrays of nozzles” FIG.s 1-5).
With respect to claim 8, Merrill discloses wherein the plurality of said nozzle exit bores are substantially identical to each other (“arrays of nozzles” FIG.s 1-5).
With respect to claim 9, Merrill discloses wherein the nozzle plate comprises one or more arrays of nozzles (“arrays of nozzles” FIG.s 1-5).
With respect to claim 10, Merrill discloses A droplet ejection device comprising the nozzle plate according to claim 1 (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 11, Merrill discloses wherein the trailing edge of the droplet ejection head is parallel to the trailing edge of the nozzle plate (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 12, Merrill discloses wherein said droplet ejection device comprises at least one fluid chamber, located adjacent to and fluidically connected to said at least one nozzle, and adapted so as, in use, to supply fluid to be ejected through said at least one nozzle (“ink chamber” FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 13, Merrill discloses wherein the nozzle plate comprises a plurality of said nozzles, and wherein each of said plurality of nozzles is fluidically connected to a respective fluid chamber (“ink chamber” FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 14, Merrill discloses , and a deposition media movement apparatus (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 15, Merrill discloses wherein the deposition media movement apparatus is arranged such that, in operation, at least a portion of the deposition media is positioned parallel to the first surface while it is moved by the deposition media movement apparatus (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 16, Merrill discloses wherein said droplet ejection apparatus is arranged as a single-pass printer (FIG. 1 and FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 17, Merrill discloses comprising ejecting droplets from the at least one nozzle at the acute inclination angle θ to the first surface (FIG.s 1-5).
With respect to claim 19, Merrill discloses wherein the apparatus has a width in a y-direction and droplets are ejected from a plurality of nozzles extending in the y direction and wherein a standard deviation of landing positions of the ejected droplets on the deposition media in the y-direction is less than 8.3 (“arrays of nozzles” FIG.s 1-5).
With respect to claim 20, Merrill discloses wherein the droplet ejection apparatus is operating in a single-pass printing mode (col 2, Lines 30-65).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claim(s) 3, 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6299270 to Merrill (hereinafter “Merrill”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130288183 to Ishikawa et al. (hereinafter “Ishikawa”).
With respect to claim 3, Merrill discloses the acute inclination angle θ.
However, Merrill fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the acute inclination angle θ is between 74° and 68°.
Ishikawa discloses:
wherein the acute inclination angle θ is between 74° and 68° ([0050] the inclination can be preferably 20 degrees to the normal, this is equal to 70 degrees acute angle to the nozzle plate surface.).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific angle as disclosed by Ishikawa with the method/apparatus of Merrill. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the control of the image forming positions and drop ejections. ([0050] of Ishikawa).
With respect to claim 4, Merrill in view of Ishikawa discloses wherein the acute inclination angle θ is between 72° and 70° ([0050] the inclination can be preferably 20 degrees to the normal, this is equal to 70 degrees acute angle to the nozzle plate surface.).
With respect to claim 18, Merrill in view of Ishikawa discloses wherein the acute inclination angle θ is between 74° and 68° ([0050] the inclination can be preferably 20 degrees to the normal, this is equal to 70 degrees acute angle to the nozzle plate surface.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, whether or not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100134561 to Sugahara discloses figures 8A-8E.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley W Thies whose telephone number is (571)270-5667. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 am -6:00 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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY W THIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853