Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/680,352

DRIVE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 31, 2024
Examiner
FEGGINS, KRISTAL J
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Riso Technologies Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
832 granted / 923 resolved
+22.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
942
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
§102
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.4%
-27.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 923 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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, 2, 4-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitahara et al. (US 6328395). Kitahara et al. discloses the following claimed limitations: * Re clms 1, 14 & 18, a drive device/drive signal generator circuit/8/ (Abst., figs 1-4); * a drive circuit/8/ configured to output a drive signal waveform to be applied to an actuator/piezoelectric component 17/ of a liquid ejection head/print head 10/ (col 5, lines 17-44, figs 1-4); * wherein the drive signal waveform (see fig 4) includes an adjustment ejection waveform/during the printing period/ portion that includes (col 5, lines 17-44, col 6, line 66-col 7, line 21, fig 4); * a first portion/P11-P15/ having an expansion pulse that decreases pressure in a pressure chamber/27/ of the actuator/piezoelectric component 17/ (col 6, line 49-col 7, line 34, col 8, line 53-col 9, line 5, figs 1-4); * a second portion/P16-P34/ having a contraction pulse that increases pressure in the pressure chamber/27/, the contraction pulse including a plurality of voltage increase changes/VPM to VL/ that change the voltage applied to the actuator/piezoelectric component 17/ stepwise (see fig 4) and a return pulse/P24, P31. P32/ that is between a pair of voltage increase changes in the plurality of voltage increase changes, the return pulse/P24, P31. P32/ changing from a first voltage level/P23/ that is less than a maximum voltage level of the contraction pulse to a second voltage level/P31/ that is greater than a minimum voltage level of the expansion pulse (col 6, line 66-col 9, line 5, figs 1-4). * Re clm 2, 15, 19 wherein the difference between the first voltage level/Vm/ and the second voltage level/Vp/ is equal to the magnitude/amplitude/ of a voltage increase change in the plurality of voltage increase changes (col 17, lines 36-43, fig 14). * Re clm 4, wherein the return pulse changes in discrete steps/P21, P23, P33/ from the first voltage level/Vm/ to the second voltage level/VPM/ (col 6, line 66-col 9, line 5, fig 4). * Re clm 5, wherein the return pulse changes in discrete steps from the second voltage/VPM/ level to first voltage level/Vm/ (col 6, line 66-col 9, line 5, fig 4). * Re clm 6, wherein magnitudes of each of the discrete steps are equal (col 6, line 66-col 9, line 5, fig 4). * Re clm 7, wherein the expansion pulse changes voltage in discrete steps from a reference voltage level to the minimum voltage level. (col 6, line 66-col 9, line 5, fig 4). * Re clm 8, wherein the expansion pulse changes voltage in discrete steps from the minimum voltage level to the reference voltage level. (col 6, line 66-col 9, line 5, fig 4). * Re clms 9, 16 & 20, wherein the drive signal waveform is a multi-drop waveform having a plurality of drop waveforms in sequence & the adjustment ejection waveform is part of at least one of the drop waveforms of the plurality of drop waveforms (col 12, lns 19-46, fig 4-8). * Re clm 10, wherein the adjustment ejection waveform is part of the first drop waveform in the sequence of the plurality of drop waveforms. (col 12, lines 19-46, figs 1-10). * Re clm 11, wherein the second drop waveform in the sequence of the plurality of drop waveforms is a reference ejection waveform including an expansion pulse that decreases pressure in the pressure chamber/27/ and a contraction pulse that increases the pressure in the pressure chamber/27/ in discreate steps (col 6, ln 49-col 9, ln 5, col 12, lns 19-46, figs 1-10). * Re clms 12 & 17, wherein the drive circuit/8/ is configured to control an ejection volume by adjusting a pulse width/ejects different volumes/ of the return pulse (col 12, lines 19-46, figs 1-10). * Re clm 13, wherein the second voltage level is a ground potential/minimum potential VL/ can be set at ground level/0V/ (col 7, lines 35-46 66, fig 4). * Further re clm 14, a liquid ejection head/print head 10/ (col 5, lines 3-23); * an actuator/piezoelectric component 17/ that expands and contracts a pressure chamber to eject a liquid from a nozzle associated with the pressure chamber (col 5, lines 17-44, figs 1-4). * Further re clm 18, a printer (col 1, lines 7-10, fig 1); * an inkjet head/print head 10/ (col 5, lines 3-23); * a sheet conveying mechanism configured to position a sheet relative to the inkjet head, wherein the inkjet head includes: an actuator/piezoelectric component, 17/ that expands and contracts a pressure chamber to eject a liquid from a nozzle associated with the pressure chamber (col 1, lines 11-27, col 5, lines 3-44). 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitahara et al. (US 6328395). Kitahara et al. does not discloses the following claimed limitations: * Re clm 3, wherein the difference between the first voltage level and the second voltage level is equal to one-half the magnitude of the expansion pulse. However, there are a finite number of possibilities for the determining the drive signal waveform having magnitude of an expansion pulse (i.e. having the same, 1/3, 3/4… magnitude of an expansion pulse or determining what one skill in the art would achieve utilizing various magnitudes of a waveform). As stated in the MPEP 2143, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is indicia of obviousness. Here, there are various magnitudes that can be utilized to achieve the various outcomes of a waveform magnitude. The Examiner sees no patentable distinction between any of these various likely options. As stated in the MPEP 2143, a simple substitution of one know element for another to obtain predictable results is indicia of obviousness The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize wherein the difference between the first voltage level and the second voltage level is equal to one-half the magnitude of the expansion pulse for the purpose of improving printed images. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTAL FEGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-530pm. 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 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. /KRISTAL FEGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 31, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 25, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600132
HEAD CHIP, LIQUID JET HEAD, LIQUID JET RECORDING DEVICE, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING HEAD CHIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600122
LIQUID DISCHARGE HEAD AND RECORDING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594772
MEDIA PROCESSING DEVICE AND COMPONENTS FOR ACTIVATABLE MEDIA PLATFORMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589587
PRINTING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD OF PRINTING APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589606
INK RIBBON CARTRIDGE HAVING FIRST AND SECOND PROTRUSIONS TO BE FITTED IN FIRST AND SECOND HOLES OF FRAME OF PRINTING DEVICE, AND PRINTING DEVICE USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+11.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 923 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month