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 of Japan Application No. 2023-131379 was received on 09 July 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 May 2024 and 10 December 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “charge-discharge time constant” AND “wherein the intermediate potential is ground potential” (Claims 6 and Claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Note: the specification (See ¶0038-0039 and Figs. 4-7), describes the second potential Va is set to the lowest potential (ground potential) and the intermediate potential Vb is set to a potential in between first potential Vc and potential Va. Nowhere in the specification or drawings is it shown or described or supported what applicant claims in Claims 6 and 15 (wherein the intermediate potential is ground potential).
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the term “charge-discharge time constant”. It is unclear as to the meaning of this term. The drawings do not appear to disclose or provide an example of this claim limitation and the specification equally fails to provide a definition. The specification mentions the term across several instances, but does not provide a useful definition which would provide one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the meaning.
Claims 2-9 are rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 11-18 are rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of Claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected because it inherits the deficiencies of Claim 19.
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 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.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US PGPub 2014/0118432 A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
With regard to Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a drive device (Figs. 1, 3), comprising:
a drive circuit configured to output a drive waveform to an actuator of a liquid ejection unit (Fig. 3; ¶0043-0046),
wherein
the actuator has a charge-discharge time constant (¶0047; 0052-0058), and
the drive waveform (Fig. 4) in a non-initial portion (Fig. 4; ¶0047, 0053; t2) makes, within a time period less than or equal to the charge-discharge time constant (t2; ¶0047, 0053), a transition from a first potential higher than an intermediate potential to a second potential lower than the intermediate potential and then a transition from the second potential to the intermediate potential (Fig. 4; oscillation driving pulse Pv; ¶0052-0058).
With regard to Claim 2, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the drive circuit is configured to switch between three voltages for outputting the drive waveform (Figs. 4-5; 0052-0058, drive circuit is configured to switch between three voltages as shown).
With regard to Claim 3, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the drive waveform in an initial portion before the non-initial portion makes a transition from the intermediate potential to the second potential, and then a transition from the second potential to the first potential (Fig. 4; t1 as shown).
With regard to Claim 7, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the liquid ejection unit is a inkjet head (¶0004).
With regard to Claim 8, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the drive circuit includes two voltage sources, and three switches (Fig. 3; ¶0051-0052, switch 52 as voltage sources, plurality of switches correlating to number of nozzles).
With regard to Claim 9, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the actuator is a piezoelectric actuator (¶0037, piezoelectric element 18).
With regard to Claim 10, Yamamoto discloses a liquid ejection device (Fig. 1; ¶0033), comprising: a liquid ejection head including an actuator (Fig. 2; head 2; piezo 18; ¶003); and a drive device including a drive circuit, the drive circuit configured to output a drive waveform to the actuator, wherein the actuator has a charge-discharge time constant, and the drive waveform in a non-initial portion makes, within a time period less than or equal to the charge-discharge time constant, a transition from a first potential higher than an intermediate potential to a second potential lower than the intermediate potential and then a transition from the second potential to the intermediate potential (See Claim 1; the above limitations are rejected for the same reasoning/rationale as claim 1).
With regard to Claims 11-12 and 16-18, these claims recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as claims 2-3 and 7-9 respectively above; therefore claims 11-12 and 16-18 are rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claims 2-3 and 7-9.
With regard to Claim 19, Yamamoto discloses a printer (Fig. 1; ¶0024), comprising: a sheet conveying apparatus (¶0033); an inkjet head including an actuator and configured to eject ink towards a sheet conveyed by the sheet conveying apparatus; and a drive device including a drive circuit, the drive circuit configured to output a drive waveform to the actuator, wherein the actuator has a charge-discharge time constant, and the drive waveform in a non-initial portion makes, within a time period less than or equal to the charge-discharge time constant, a transition from a first potential higher than an intermediate potential to a second potential lower than the intermediate potential and then a transition from the second potential to the intermediate potential (See Claim 1; the above limitations are rejected for the same reasoning/rationale as claim 1).
20. The printer according to claim 19, wherein, in the initial portion of the waveform, the transition from the second potential to the first potential occurs in a step waveform in which the intermediate potential is held for a predetermined time period before transitioning to the first potential.
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 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.
Claims 4-5, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto.
With regard to Claim 4, Yamamoto further discloses wherein, in the initial portion of the waveform, the transition from the second potential (Fig. 8b; E3) to the first potential (E4) occurs in a step waveform in which the intermediate potential (Eb) is held for a predetermined time period (p24) before transitioning to the first potential (Fig. 8b; ¶0068-0071).
The waveform as shown in Fig. 8b is an example of the non-initial portion of the waveform, however Yamamoto explicitly discloses that the configuration of any of the ejection driving pulses can be employed, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the waveform of Fig. 8b as the initial portion of the waveform, in order to be applied to various other configurations and purposes, as taught by Yamamoto (¶0071-0073).
With regard to Claim 5, the limitation of “wherein the time period for the non-initial portion of the waveform is set to compensate for an amount of charge accumulated due to the step waveform” is functional language and applicant is reminded that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to Claims 13 and 14, these claims recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as claims 4 and 5 respectively above; therefore claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claims 4 and 5.
With regard to Claim 20, this claim recites limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as claim 4 above; therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claim 4.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, in view of Nakamura (US PGPub 2014/0192105 A1).
With regard to Claim 6, Yamamoto further discloses wherein the intermediate potential is ground potential (¶0067-0069, intermediate potential is reference potential between positive and negative polarity).
Yamamoto discloses the intermediate potential is a reference potential which is common in the art to also be ground potential and which Yamamoto discloses as being a reference voltage between the negative and positive polarity, however Yamamoto does not explicitly use the term ground or 0V.
The secondary reference of Nakamura discloses wherein a reference voltage is ground potential (Fig. 13B; ¶0106-0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reference potential as 0v or ground of Nakamura, with the drive device of Yamamoto, in order to reduce the cost of the switch circuit and in order to obtain a desired ejection force, as taught by Nakamura (¶0113; 0012-0015).
With regard to Claim 15, this claim recites limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as claim 6 above; therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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 on 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853