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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 26 March 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-17, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI et al. (US 2013/0293610 A1) in view of Shinkawa et al. (US 2004/0223027 A1).
As related to independent claims 1 & 20 SUZUKI et al. teaches an abnormality determination method [claim 1] used in a liquid ejecting apparatus comprising: a liquid ejecting head; a determination portion and a control portion [claim 20] (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 2A, 1, & 6A, shown below) the liquid ejecting head including a liquid storage portion that is configured to store a liquid, and a plurality of ejecting portions (SUZUKI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 8), in which each of the plurality of ejecting portions includes a nozzle that ejects the liquid, a pressure chamber that communicates with the nozzle, a first electrode, a second electrode, and a piezoelectric body that is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode and is driven to apply a pressure fluctuation to the liquid in the pressure chamber (SUZUKI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 8 & Page 3, Paragraph 48; and Figure 2B, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
286
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
316
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
762
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claims 1 & 20, SUZUKI et al. does not pictorially depict the liquid storage portion that is configured to store a liquid, and a plurality of ejecting portions. However, Shinkawa et al. teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus and method of use with a determination portion that is configured to determine whether or not the liquid ejecting head has an abnormality (Shinkawa et al. – Figures 2, 4, & 24, shown below), and specifically depicts a liquid storage portion that is configured to store a liquid, and a plurality of ejecting portions (Shinkawa et al. – Figures 2 & 4, shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
490
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
750
508
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
786
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the liquid ejecting head of SUZUKI et al. to include the liquid storage portion that is configured to store a liquid, and a plurality of ejecting portions of Shinkawa et al. in an effort to provide a droplet ejection apparatus and an ejection failure detection and recovery method with a specific recovery process based on the cause of the ejection failure (Shinkawa et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5 & 10).
Continuing with independent claims 1 & 20, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. continues to teach the liquid storage portion communicates with the pressure chamber of each of the plurality of ejecting portions via an individual flow path, the method comprising (SUZUKI et al. – Figure 2B, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Figure 4, shown above and Figures 44-45, shown below): holding a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode of a first ejecting portion among the plurality of ejecting portions at a constant voltage in a first period; supplying a drive signal including a drive pulse for applying a pressure fluctuation to the liquid in the pressure chamber of a second ejecting portion different from the first ejecting portion among the plurality of ejecting portions, to one of the first electrode and the second electrode of the second ejecting portion in the first period (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A & 10, shown below and Shinkawa et al. – Figure 20, shown below); detecting a residual vibration, which is a vibration of the liquid in the pressure chamber of the first ejecting portion, in a second period following the first period; and determining whether or not the liquid ejecting head has an abnormality based on the residual vibration (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A & 6A and Shinkawa et la. – Figures 10 & 20, shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
226
290
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
346
552
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
374
688
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
616
438
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
536
450
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
354
440
media_image13.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein as whether or not the liquid ejecting head has the abnormality, whether or not the liquid storage portion has an abnormality is determined based on the residual vibration (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A & 6A, both shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Figures 20 & 24, both shown above).
As related to dependent claim 3, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein in the first period, an ejection pulse for ejecting a droplet from the nozzle is supplied as the drive pulse to one of the first electrode and the second electrode of the second ejecting portion (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A & 6A, both shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Figures 20 & 24, both shown above).
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein in the second period, a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode of the second ejecting portion is held at a constant voltage (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A & 6A, both shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Figures 20 & 24, both shown above).
As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein before the first period, whether or not each of the plurality of ejecting portions has an abnormality is determined, and the first ejecting portion and the second ejecting portion are set from ejecting portions determined to be normal among the plurality of ejecting portions (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A, 6A, & 10 each shown above and Figures 7 & 8A, shown below and Shinkawa et al. – Figures 20 & 24, both shown above and Figures 30 & 31, shown below).
PNG
media_image14.png
534
382
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
306
406
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
426
508
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
534
406
media_image17.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein in the first period and the second period, a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode of a third ejecting portion, which is an ejecting portion adjacent to the first ejecting portion and different from the second ejecting portion among the plurality of ejecting portions, is held at a constant voltage (SUZUKI et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 73-79 & Figures 3A, 8A, & 10, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 22 - Page 3, Paragraph 26 & Figure 20, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein in the first period and the second period, a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode of each of a plurality of third ejecting portions, which are continuously arranged adjacent to the first ejecting portion and different from the second ejecting portion among the plurality of ejecting portions, is held at a constant voltage (SUZUKI et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 73-79 & Figures 3A, 8A, & 10, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 22 - Page 3, Paragraph 26 & Figures 4, 20, & 45, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 8, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein the number of the second ejecting portions is more than the number of the third ejecting portions (SUZUKI et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 73-79 & Figures 3A, 8A, & 10, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 22 - Page 3, Paragraph 26; Page 19, Paragraphs 261-264; & Figures 4, 20, & 45, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 10, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein a determination process including the first period and the second period is executed a plurality of times, in each of the plurality of times of determination process, a different ejecting portion is set as the first ejecting portion, and whether or not the liquid ejecting head has the abnormality is determined based on the residual vibration detected in the second period of each of the plurality of times of determination process (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A, 6A, 8A, & 10, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Figures 10, 20, 30, & 31, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 11, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein whether or not the liquid ejecting head has the abnormality is determined based on a comparison result between a predetermined reference residual vibration and the residual vibration detected in the second period (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A, 6A, 8A, & 10, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Figures 10, 20, 30, & 31, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 12, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein whether or not the liquid ejecting head has the abnormality is determined based on a comparison result between a reference amplitude value indicated by reference information prepared in advance and an amplitude value of the residual vibration detected in the second period (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 4A, 5D, & 6D, shown below and Shinkawa et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 205-206 and Figures 10 & 20, shown above).
PNG
media_image18.png
248
378
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
178
380
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
186
394
media_image20.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 13, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein the reference amplitude value is determined based on an amplitude value of a reference residual vibration measured in advance, the first ejecting portion in the first period and the second period is an ejecting portion at the same position as the first ejecting portion when the reference residual vibration is measured, and the second ejecting portion in the first period and the second period is an ejecting portion at the same position as the second ejecting portion when the reference residual vibration is measured (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 4A, 5D, & 6D, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 205-206; Page 15, Paragraphs 220-224; and Figures 10 & 20, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 15, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein the reference amplitude value includes a second amplitude value, and when the amplitude value of the residual vibration detected in the second period is less than the second amplitude value, it is determined that an air bubble exists in the liquid storage portion (SUZUKI et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 62 – Page 5, Paragraph 72 & Figure 4A, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Page 11, Paragraphs 195-200 and Figures 10 & 20, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 16, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein whether or not the liquid ejecting head has the abnormality is determined based on a comparison result between a reference period indicated by reference information prepared in advance and a period of the residual vibration detected in the second period (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A, 6A, 8A, & 10, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Figures 10, 20, 30, & 31, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 17, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein the reference period is determined based on a period of a reference residual vibration measured in advance, the first ejecting portion in the first period and the second period is an ejecting portion at the same position as the first ejecting portion when the reference residual vibration is measured, and the second ejecting portion in the first period and the second period is an ejecting portion at the same position as the second ejecting portion when the reference residual vibration is measured (SUZUKI et al. – Figures 3A, 4A, 5D, 6D, & 8A, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 205-206; Page 15, Paragraphs 220-224; and Figures 10 & 20, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 19, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein the reference period includes a second period, and when an amplitude value of the residual vibration detected in the second period is more than the second period, it is determined that an air bubble exists in the liquid storage portion (SUZUKI et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 62 – Page 5, Paragraph 72 & Figure 4A, shown above and Shinkawa et al. – Page 11, Paragraphs 195-200 and Figures 10 & 20, shown above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of SUZUKI et al. (US 2013/0293610 A1) and Shinkawa et al. (US 2004/0223027 A1) and further in view of Yanaka et al. (US 2014/0285554 A1).
The combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, and teaches additional signals with a plurality of drive pulses (Shinkawa et al. – Figure 20, shown above, but does not specifically teach the drive signal includes a plurality of drive pulses. However, Yanaka et al. teaches an abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head using the residual vibration and specifically teaches the drive signal includes a plurality of drive pulses for applying a pressure fluctuation to the liquid in the pressure chamber of the second ejecting portion in specific periods (Yanaka et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 68-77 & Figures 8 & 14, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drive pulse of the combination SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. with that of Yanaka et al. in an effort to provide different size droplets from the same ejection nozzle (Yanaka et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 11 and Page 5, Paragraphs 68-70).
PNG
media_image21.png
560
344
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
216
362
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Claims 14 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of SUZUKI et al. (US 2013/0293610 A1) and Shinkawa et al. (US 2004/0223027 A1) and further in view of SATO et al. (US 2023/0010747A1).
As related to further dependent claim 14, the combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, but does not specifically teach the liquid storage portion includes a compliance portion that absorbs a vibration of the stored liquid. However, SATO et al. teaches a liquid ejecting head with an abnormality determination method (SATO et al. – Page 15, Paragraph 144 & Page 26, Paragraphs 283-284 and Figures 1 & 4, shown below) and specifically teaches the liquid storage portion includes a compliance portion that absorbs a vibration of the stored liquid (SATO et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 62-64 and Figure 4, Reference #36, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the abnormality determination method of combination of SUZUKI et al. and Shinkawa et al. with the use of the compliance section of SATO et al. in an effort to provide a suppression of pressure fluctuations in the flow path(s) wherein the reference amplitude value of the combination includes a first amplitude value, and when the amplitude value of the residual vibration detected in the second period is more than the first amplitude value, it is determined that the compliance portion has an abnormality [i.e. an abnormality other than an air bubble] (SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 23-27 & Figures 5D & 6D, shown above and SATO et al. – Page 15, Paragraph 144 & Page 26, Paragraphs 283-284).
PNG
media_image23.png
396
548
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
402
644
media_image24.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 18, the combination of SUZUKI et al. Shinkawa et al. and SATO et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the abnormality determination method for a liquid ejecting head, wherein the liquid storage portion includes a compliance portion that absorbs a vibration of the stored liquid (SATO et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 62-64; Page 15, Paragraph 144 & Page 26, Paragraphs 283-284; and Figure 4, Reference #36, shown above) the reference period includes a first period, and when the period of the residual vibration detected in the second period is less than the first period, it is determined that the compliance portion has an abnormality [i.e. an abnormality other than an air bubble] (SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 23-27 & Figures 5D & 6D, shown above and SATO et al. – Page 15, Paragraph 144 & Page 26, Paragraphs 283-284).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujii et al. (US 6,481,833 B1) teaches an inkjet print head with a compliance portion to prevent crosstalk between chambers. Shinkawa et al. (US 2005/0116977 A1) teaches an ejection failure detection system in a liquid ejecting head which measures residual vibration. Shinkawa (US 2005/0212845 A1) teaches a method of detecting discharge abnormality in a liquid ejecting head which measures residual vibration. MIHAILOVIC et al. (US 2017/0305146 A1) teaches detecting a residual wave in an inkjet nozzle system to check for operative and malfunctioning heads. SAITO et al. (US 2020/0094547 A1) teaches detecting a residual wave in an inkjet nozzle system to check for operative and malfunctioning heads. KATAKURA et al. (US 2022/0153021 A1) teaches a method of detecting discharge abnormality in a liquid ejecting head which measures pulse and residual vibration. TOSHIMA (US 2024/0190127 A1) teaches a system for acquiring defective nozzle information and correcting for it.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853