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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the recitation of “multiple drive pulses signals” to “multiple drive pulse. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the following recitations to place the claim in proper sentence format:
“an increasing section wherein” to “an increasing section, wherein”;
“a holding section wherein” to “a holding section, wherein”; and
“a decreasing section to wherein” to “a decreasing section,
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5 are 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.
Regarding claims 4-5:
These claims attempt to further limit “the drive pulse.” However, because parent claim 1 requires the drive pulse signal to include “a first drive pulse” and “a second drive pulse,” it is not clear to which drive pulses these limitations are intended to limit. Are these limitations meant to define the “drive pulse signal”? Are both the first and second drive pulses limited in this manner? Only a particular one of the drive pulses?
In view of the above, an artisan would not be able to determine the point of infringement of this claim.
Regarding claim 9:
The claim limitation that “the desired discharge velocity during the decreasing section is higher than the desired discharge velocity during the increasing section and the holding section” is not clear in the context of the claim.
The claim first indicates that the controller is configured to transmit a drive pulse signal that causes discharge of liquid “at a desired discharge velocity.” However, the above limitation then appears to indicate that there are three desired discharge velocities (during each of the decreasing section, increasing section, and holding section). It is not clear how the liquid is discharged at a desired velocity using three different desired velocities.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Hornsell et al. (US 2005/0103902 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Hornsell et al. disclose a drive controller comprising:
circuitry (computer 20) configured to:
drive a liquid discharge head (print head 24) to discharge a liquid from a discharge port (nozzle orifice 12), the liquid discharge head including the discharge port (Fig. 1) and a valve (at least plunger 1), and
transmit a drive pulse signal to the valve (paragraphs 126, 143), the drive pulse signal controlling the valve to open and close the discharge port (paragraphs 92-93, 136), the drive pulse signal including:
a first drive pulse causing the valve to hold at a first displacement amount for a first holding time period (“a second voltage … for a further period of time”: paragraphs 126, 143 & Fig. 16c), and
a second drive pulse causing the valve to hold at a second displacement amount for a second holding time period (“a first voltage for a first period”) the second holding time period being shorter than the first holding time period (paragraph 143 & Fig. 16c),
wherein an average value of the second displacement amount is larger than an average value of the first displacement amount (paragraphs 126, 143 & Fig. 16c).
Regarding claim 2:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the circuitry is further configured to:
drive the liquid discharge head to discharge the liquid to at least two adjacent locations of a liquid discharge object (paragraphs 51-54, 62 & Fig. 4);
transmit multiple drive pulse signals to the valve (Fig. 16c), the multiple drive pulse signals causing the valve to open and close the valve a number of times equal to a number of the at least two adjacent locations (paragraphs 51-54, 62 & Fig. 4); and
transmit a single drive pulse to the valve causing the valve to open and close the valve once and keep the valve open to discharge droplets across the at least two adjacent locations (“valve can be held in the open position for prolonged periods to print continuous lines”: paragraphs 62, 68).
Regarding claim 3:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the circuitry is configured to transmit multiple drive pulse signals to the valve (Fig. 16c), the multiple drive pulse signals causing the valve to close at different velocities (paragraphs 131-132).
Regarding claim 6:
Hornsell et al. disclose a drive controller comprising:
circuitry (computer 20) configured to:
drive a liquid discharge head (print head 24) to discharge a liquid from a discharge port (nozzle orifice 12), a valve (at least plunger 1), and a drive element (coil 3), wherein driving the liquid discharge head causes the liquid discharge head to discharge a liquid from the discharge port (paragraphs 92-93, 136), the drive element configured to open and close the valve (paragraphs 92-93, 136); and
transmit a drive pulse signal (Fig. 16c) to the valve (paragraphs 126, 143), the drive pulse signal having a voltage which causes the drive element to drive the valve to open and close the discharge port (paragraphs 92-93, 136), the drive pulse signal including a first drive pulse (“a second voltage … for a further period of time”) and a second drive pulse (“a first voltage for a first period”: paragraphs 126, 143 & Fig. 16c); and
the drive element configured to:
hold the voltage at a first voltage for a first holding time period in response to the first drive pulse (Fig. 16c); and
hold the voltage at a second voltage for a second holding time period in response to the second drive pulse (Fig. 16c), the second holding time period being shorter than the first holding time period (Fig. 16c), and an average value of the second voltage being larger than an average value of the first voltage (Fig. 16c).
Regarding claim 7:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and also that the drive pulse signal further includes:
an increasing section (a voltage ramp: Fig. 16c), wherein the voltage is increased to the first voltage or the second voltage (Fig. 16c),
a holding section (a voltage holding period: Fig. 16c), wherein the voltage is held at the first voltage or the second voltage (Fig. 16c), and
a decreasing section (a voltage drop: Fig. 16c), wherein the voltage is decreased from the first voltage or the second voltage (Fig. 16c);
wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
transmit multiple drive pulse signals to the drive element (for each droplet: paragraphs 51-54, 62 & Fig. 4), each of the multiple drive pulse signals having the increasing section, the holding section, and the decreasing section for a number of the at least two adjacent locations onto which the liquid is individually discharged (paragraphs 51-54, 62 & Figs. 4, 16c), and
transmit a single drive pulse signal to the drive element, the single drive pulse signal having one set of the increasing section, the holding section, and the decreasing section to discharge droplets across the at least two adjacent locations (“valve can be held in the open position for prolonged periods to print continuous lines”: paragraphs 62, 68).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood):
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and also that the drive pulse signal further includes:
an increasing section (a voltage ramp: Fig. 16c), wherein the voltage is increased to the first voltage or the second voltage (Fig. 16c),
a holding section (a voltage holding period: Fig. 16c), wherein the voltage is held at the first voltage or the second voltage (Fig. 16c), and
a decreasing section (a voltage drop: Fig. 16c), wherein the voltage is decreased from the first voltage or the second voltage (Fig. 16c);
wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
transmit the drive pulse signal to the drive element (paragraphs 51-54, 62 & Fig. 4), the drive pulse signal causing the liquid discharge head to discharge the liquid from the discharge port at a desired discharge velocity (desired droplet size and printed location: paragraph 67).
Regarding claims 11 and 16:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claims 1/14, and also that the liquid discharge head is further configured to discharge a first droplet having a first size in response to the first drive pulse (in response to both the first and second pulses: paragraphs 93, 98, 112 & Fig. 16c); and discharge a second droplet having a second size smaller than the first size in response to the second drive pulse (in response to both the first and second pulses: paragraphs 93, 98, 112 & Fig. 16c).
Regarding claims 12 and 17:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claims 1/14, and also that the liquid discharge head is configured to discharge the liquid in a first cycle (corresponding to 1 kHz); and discharge the liquid in a second cycle shorter than the first cycle (corresponding to 8 kHz: paragraph 108).
Regarding claims 13 and 15:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claims 1/6, and also that the drive controller and liquid discharge head are comprised in a head device (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14:
Hornsell et al. disclose a head device comprising:
a liquid discharge head (print head 24), the liquid discharge head including a discharge port (nozzle orifice 12) and a valve (at least plunger 1), the liquid discharge head configured to discharger a liquid from the discharge port (paragraphs 92-93, 136); and
circuitry (computer 20) configured to:
cause the liquid discharge head to discharge a liquid from the discharge port (paragraphs 92-93, 136),
transmit a drive pulse signal to the valve (paragraphs 126, 143), the drive pulse signal causing the valve to open and close the discharge port (paragraphs 92-93, 136), the drive pulse signal including:
a first drive pulse causing the valve to hold at a first displacement amount for a first holding time period (“a second voltage … for a further period of time”: paragraphs 126, 143 & Fig. 16c), and
a second drive pulse causing the valve to hold at a second displacement amount for a second holding time period (“a first voltage for a first period”) the second holding time period being shorter than the first holding time period (paragraph 143 & Fig. 16c),
wherein an average value of the second displacement amount is larger than an average value of the first displacement amount (paragraphs 126, 143 & Fig. 16c).
Regarding claim 18:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 13, and also that the head device is comprised in a liquid discharge apparatus (paragraph 1 & Fig. 4).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornsell et al. (US 2005/0103902 A1) in view of Ikushima (US 2018/0071766 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
Hornsell et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and also that the circuitry is configured to transmit multiple drive pulse signals with decreasing sections (at least the various calibrated pulses for different drop sizes: paragraphs 112-113 & Fig. 16c).
Hornsell et al. do not expressly disclose that the circuitry is configured to transmit multiple drive pulse signals having different decreasing sections.
However, Ikushima teaches that discharge accuracy can be improved through adjustments of decreasing sections (td: paragraph 89), so as to decrease a pulse signal voltage (Fig. 3).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Hornsell et al.’s circuitry to transmit multiple drive pulse signals having different decreasing sections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 appears to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious a drive controller comprising circuitry that generates a drive pulse signal that satisfies the recited Equation (1). It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 10, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Each of US 2019/0344564 A1, US 2017/0252770 A1, US 2016/0339467 A1, and US 2009/0167818 A1 disclose relative drive pulse signals for a liquid discharge head comprising a discharge port and valve.
US 6053596 disclose relative drive pulse signals for a liquid discharge head in which the voltage and holding times differ for each pulse (Fig. 32). These pulses are not applied to a head having a valve that opens and closes a discharge port.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853