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 filed 02/117/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hoisington does not teach or suggest a quantitative relationship between the channel nozzle diameter and the natural frequency of the channel Fr [kHz] as specified by Expressions 1 and 2, the Hoisington reference does point to a relationship between the nozzle and natural frequency of the channel. Hoisington teaches multiple variations in the chamber can cause multiple natural frequencies/pulses [Para. 0069]. It also teaches the structure of the chamber can be designed using commercial software. [Para. 0084]. The pulses (frequencies) can be influenced by the chamber’s volume [Para. 0104] and the relationship between pulses (freq) and nozzle/ejector size can be used for stability as noted in Para. 0095 and 0098.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2009/0244200) and further in view of Hoisington (US 2006/0181557).
With regard to claim 1, Ozawa discloses a liquid droplet ejecting head [Fig. 18] comprising:
a channel member (71) [Para. 0090] including a channel including a nozzle (74) and a pressure chamber (73) communicating with the nozzle; and
a piezoelectric element (75) [Para. 0090] arranged on the channel member and configured to apply a pressure to a liquid inside the pressure chamber so as to eject a liquid droplet of the liquid from the nozzle [Para. 0092], but does not disclose wherein a diameter D [um] of the nozzle and a natural frequency Fr [kHz] of the channel satisfy Expressions 1 and 2 as follows:
Expression 1: D ≤ -2.25 X 10exp(-8) X Fr(subscript 4)+ 2.11 X 10 exp(-5) X Fr (subscript 3) -7.60 X 10exp(-3) X Fr² + 1.32 X Fr - 62.9
Expression 2: D ≥ 0.050 X Fr + 8.5, and the natural frequency Fr is a calculated value based on a width of the pressure chamber, a length of the pressure chamber and the diameter D of the nozzle.
However, Hoisington teaches a diameter D [microns] of the nozzle and a natural frequency f.sub.j [kHz] of the channel satisfy Expressions 1 and 2 as follows:
Expression 1: D ≤ -2.25 X 10exp(-8) X Fr(subscript 4)+ 2.11 X 10 exp(-5) X Fr (subscript 3) -7.60 X 10exp(-3) X Fr² + 1.32 X Fr - 62.9
Expression 2: D ≥ 0.050 X Fr + 8.5.
[nozzle size may vary on the order of a few microns or be tens of microns - See Para. 0053; natural frequency of an ink jet varies as a function of the ink jet design...equal to or greater than about 100kHz; Para. 0057]. Hoisington also teaches multiple variations in the chamber can cause multiple natural frequencies/pulses [Para. 0069] and the structure of the chamber can be designed using commercial software. [Para. 0084]. The pulses (frequencies) can be influenced by the chamber’s volume [Para. 0104] and the relationship between pulses (freq) and nozzle/ejector size can be used for stability [ Para. 0095 and 0098].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a diameter range as claimed with respect a natural frequency the channel to affect the frequency response of the printhead. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to satisfy the Expression 1 and 2, 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.
With regard to claim 3, Ozawa's modified liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Hoisington also discloses wherein the diameter D [um] of the nozzle and the natural frequency Fr [kHz] of the channel satisfy Expression 3 as follows:
Expression 3: D > 0.055 X Fr+ 11.5. [nozzle size may vary on the order of a few microns or be tens of microns - See Para. 0053; natural frequency of an ink jet varies as a function of the ink jet design...equal to or greater than about 100kHz; Para. 0057].
With regards to claim 9, Ozawa's modified liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Ozawa also discloses wherein a length of the pressure chamber is 550 um or less. [See Example 1; Fig. 8]
With regard to claim 11, Ozawa's modified liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Ozawa also discloses wherein the diameter D of the nozzle is 25 um or less. [See Example 1; Fig. 8]
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2009/0244200) in view of Hoisington (US 2006/0181557) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parab (US 2021/0379915).
With regard to claim 2, Ozawa's modified liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a resolution of an image recorded by the liquid droplet is 1200 dpi or more.
However, Parab teaches a resolution of an image recorded by the liquid droplet is 1200 dpi or more. [Para.0018]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the printhead wherein a resolution of an image recorded by the liquid droplet is 1200 dpi or more since higher resolution print heads print with smaller dot sizes.
With regard to claim 4, Ozawa's modified liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 3, and Parab also discloses wherein a resolution of an image recorded by the liquid droplet is 600 dpi or more. [Para. 0018]
With regard to claim 5, Ozawa's modified liquid droplet ejecting head according to claim 4, and Parab also discloses wherein the resolution is 600 dpi X 600 dpi. [Para. 0018]
Claim(s) 6-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2009/0244200) in view of Hoisington (US 2006/0181557) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kakiuchi (US 2021/0370672).
With regard to claim 6, Ozawa's liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the piezoelectric element is a thin film piezoelectric element [Para. 0054].
However, Kakiuchi teaches a piezoelectric element is a thin film piezoelectric element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the piezoelectric element as a thin piezoelectric element in order to render a high degree of flexure of the piezoelectric layer.
With regard to claim 7, Ozawa's modified liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 6, and Kakiuchi also discloses wherein a thickness of the thin film piezoelectric element is 1.5 um or less. [Para. 0054]
With regard to claim 8, Ozawa's liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a width of the pressure chamber is 70 um or less.
However, Kakiuchi teaches wherein a width of a pressure chamber (26) is 70 um or less. [width of pressure chamber is about 65; Para. 0038]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the width of the pressure chamber of Ozawa 70 um or less in order to enhance print quality.
With regard to claim 10, Ozawa's liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an ejecting initial velocity of the liquid droplet from the nozzle is 7 m/s or more.
However, Kakiuchi teaches wherein an ejecting initial velocity of the liquid droplet from the nozzle is 7 m/s or more. [discharging speed is 6 m/s or faster; Para. 0005]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ejecting initial velocity of the liquid droplet from the nozzle of Ozawa's modified ejecting head as 7 m/s or more in order to better observe that the liquid droplets divide or diffuse themselves.
With regard to claim 12, Ozawa's liquid droplet ejecting head discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the nozzle is one of a plurality of nozzles arranged at a pitch of 300 dpi or more per a row.
However, Kakiuchi teaches wherein the nozzle is one of a plurality of nozzles arranged at a pitch of 300 dpi or more per a row [Para. 0005, 0011].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure to arrange the nozzle of one of a plurality of nozzles at a pitch of 300 dpi or more per a row in order to enhance print quality.
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 TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
/TRACEY M MCMILLION/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights