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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 08/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al.(KR 102715331 B1, hereafter Ryu).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryu discloses:
A reservoir(Fig. 27 [530]) that receives ink including a light emitting element(Fig. 27 [95]) and a solvent(fig. 27 [91]);
an element-movement-control module(Fig. 26), the element-movement control module(Fig. 26) including a pipe part(Fig. 26 [370]) defining an ink channel(See Fig. 26 [90]) fluidly connected to the reservoir(Fig. 27 [530]), and an electrode part(Fig. 27 [CE]) disposed on a surface of the pipe part(Fig. 26 [370]); and
a nozzle part(Fig. 27 [300]) that ejects the ink outward, wherein
the element-movement-control module(Fig. 26) operates in a first mode(off) or a second mode(on),
in case that the element-movement control module(Fig. 26) operates in the first mode, movement of the light emitting element(Fig. 27 [95]) is unrestricted, and
in case that the element-movement control module operates in the second mode, the electrode part(Fig. 27 [CE]) forms an electric field(Fig. 26 [IEL’]), and the movement of the light emitting element(Fig. 26 [95]) in the ink channel(Fig. 26 See figure below) is restricted at least in an area corresponding to a position at which the electrode part(Fig. 26 [CE]) is disposed.
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) 2-4, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu.
Regarding Claim 2,
Ryu discloses a material(Fig. 26 [370]) that contains a transparent material. However, Ryu does not specifically disclose that this transparent material is comprised of a material that has non-conductivity. However, given the fact that Ryu discloses a pair of electrodes in the way that they do(See Fig. 26 [CE]), one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably gather that the material of the pipe could not be conductive in order to provide for the electrodes in the way that Ryu shows in Fig. 26, or else the resulting electric field(Fig. 26 [IEL’]) would not be possible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to comprise the pipe portion of Ryu’s apparatus as a non-conductive material as such a feature would be necessary to form Ryu’s device.
Regarding Claim 3,
Ryu discloses an electrode part(Fig. 26 [CE]) including a first side electrode(Fig. 26 [CE1]) and a second side electrode(Fig. 26 [CE2]) that form a pair and are spaced apart from each other.
However, Ryu does not show in this embodiment that the ink channel is disposed between the first side electrode and the second side electrode.
In another embodiment, Ryu shows a plurality of ink channels(See Fig. 5 [350]). Therefore, when applying the electrodes from Fig. 26 to the plurality of ink channels from Fig. 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at an apparatus wherein a pair of electrodes have an ink channel placed in between. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus in accordance with the limitations of claim 3 by combining an embodiment of Fig. 26 with the embodiment of Fig. 5, producing an apparatus with a plurality of ink channels with electrodes placed therein.
Regarding Claim 4,
In the embodiment of Figs. 26/27, Ryu does not teach or disclose the plurality of unit areas as disclosed in Claim 4. However, in an alternate embodiment of Fig. 5, Ryu shows a plurality of unit areas(Fig. 5 [350]) in which when applied to the zoomed-in Fig. 26, would generate a structure wherein an electrode in disposed in a unit area among the plurality of unit areas, and a volume of the ink channel(Fig. 5 [350]) in the unit area among the plurality of unit areas corresponds to a drop volume of the ink(Fig. 5 [90]) in case that the ink is ejected from the nozzle part(Fig. 5 [300]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus in accordance with the limitations of claim 4 by combining an embodiment of Fig. 26 with the embodiment of Fig. 5, producing an apparatus with a plurality of ink channels with electrodes placed therein.
Regarding Claim 12,
In an alternative embodiment, Ryu discloses a nozzle part(Fig. 4 [300]) and the element-movement control module(Fig. 4 [100]) are disposed in a print head part(Fig. 4 [100/300]),
The apparatus(Fig. 4) further comprises:
a main channel(Fig. 4 [IL1]) fluidly connecting the print head part(fig. 4 [100/300]) with the reservoir(Fig. 4 [530]); and
a body channel(Fig. 5 [330]) formed in the print head part(Fig. 4 [100/300]) and fluidly connecting the main channel(Fig. 4 [IL1]) with the ink channel(Fig. 5 [350]), and
the element-movement-control module(Fig. 5 See figure below) is not disposed in the body channel(Fig. 5 [330]).
While Ryu does not explicitly teach or disclose that the body channel has a diameter greater than the diameter of the ink channel. However, given that the body channel serves a plurality of ink channels, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in order to properly eject ink from each of the plurality of ink channels, one would need to provide a body channel with a sufficiently large flow of liquid, by which doing so would be possible with a larger body channel diameter. Therefore, in the creation of Ryu’s device, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the possibility of expanding the body channel to accommodate the plurality of ink channels extending out from the body channel. Producing this device would have generated a predictable result in the creation of Ryu’s device.
Regarding Claim 13, Ryu further discloses
The print head part(Fig. 4 [300/100]) comprises a body pipe(Fig. 5 [310]) forming a recycle channel(Fig. 4 [IL2]) fluidly connected to the ink channel(Fig. 5 [350]),
The recycle channel(Fig. 4 [IL2]) is fluidly connected to the reservoir(Fig. 4 [530]), and
The body pipe(Fig. 5 [310]) forms a space in which the element-movement-control module(Fig. 5 See figure below) is disposed.
Claims 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ryu in view of Byun et al.(US 20200357661 A1, hereafter Byun).
Regarding Claim 5, Ryu further discloses:
The electrode part(Fig. 26 [CE]) includes a plurality of electrode parts(Fig. 26 [CE1/CE2]) spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the pipe part(Fig. 26 [370]), and
the plurality of electrode parts(Fig. 26 [CE1/CE2]) comprises a first edge electrode part(fig. 26 [CE1]) adjacent to a first end of the unit area among the plurality of unit areas, a second edge electrode part(Fig. 26 [CE2]) adjacent to a second end of the unit area among the plurality of unit areas.
Ryu does not teach or disclose an inner electrode part disposed between the first edge electrode part and the second edge electrode part.
In the same field of endeavor, Byun discloses an inner electrode part(Fig. 10 [455]) disposed between a first and second edge electrode(Fig. 10 [452]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the apparatus disclosed by Ryu along the lines of Byun. One might have been motivated to provide an additional inner electrode in order to assist the induction of the electric field producing electrodes in Ryu’s apparatus. Producing this device would have generated a predictable result in the creation of Ryu’s apparatus with an additional electrode interposed between their first and second edge electrodes.
Regarding Claim 6,
Ryu further discloses:
The unit area(Fig. 5 See figure below) among the plurality of unit areas comprises a plurality of sub-unit areas and
The plurality of electrode parts(Fig. 26 [CE1/CE2])adjacent to each other with the plurality of sub-unit areas disposed between the plurality of electrode parts(Fig. 26 [CE1/CE2]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ryu further discloses:
A number of the plurality of sub-unit areas is an even number of 4 or more.
Regarding Claim 8,
Ryu does not specifically lay out how the apparatus is operated. However, as the apparatus disclosed by Ryu would be capable of turning on and off at a specific time interval, the functional limitation laid out in claim 8 does not provide any additional structural limitations by which the structure of the apparatus is further limited. See MPEP 2114 Paragraph II.
Regarding Claim 9,
Ryu does not specifically lay out how the apparatus is operated. However, as the apparatus disclosed by Ryu would be capable of turning on and off at a specific time interval, the functional limitation laid out in claim 9 does not provide any additional structural limitations by which the structure of the apparatus is further limited. See MPEP 2114 Paragraph II.
Regarding Claim 10,
Ryu discloses an inspection part(Fig. 26 [400]) that is spaced apart from the electrode part(Fig.26 [CE]) in the longitudinal direction of the pipe part(Fig. 26 [370]) and that acquires information about the movement of the light emitting elements(Fig. 26 [95]) in the ink channel(Fig. 26 See figure below).
Regarding Claim 11,
Ryu does not specifically lay out how the apparatus is operated. However, as the apparatus disclosed by Ryu would be capable of turning on and off at a specific time interval, the functional limitation laid out in claim 11 does not provide any additional structural limitations by which the structure of the apparatus is further limited. See MPEP 2114 Paragraph II.
PNG
media_image1.png
816
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Above: Fig. 26 of Ryu with Ink Channel denoted by examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
829
957
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Above: Unit area, element-movement control module, and unit sub-areas denoted by examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Byun et al.(US 20240376330 A1) discloses an inkjet head with electrodes on either side. Jo et al.(US 20240042753 A1) discloses a printing apparatus. Lee et al.(US 20220254753 A1) discloses an inkjet printing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD whose telephone number is (703)756-1506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 11:00 AM-9:00PM 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights