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 .
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on 5/15/2026. These amendments preserve the original scope of disclosure and are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that substituting Watanabe’s filter-damper into Mizuno’s disclosed structure would not have yielded the predictable result of filtering the marking material flowing from the inflow channel to the inflow trench, because “Mizuno discloses a complex, multi-plate structure with a damper film (23) positioned between a lower-side manifold plate (22) and a channel plate (51). Watanabe, in contrast, discloses a different architecture where a damper member (160) is positioned between a first substrate (190) and a second substrate (170)” (pages 8-9 of remarks). Applicant feels that using Mizuno’s damper film as a filter at the inflow channels would require significant re-engineering of Mizuno’s fluid paths (page 9 of remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In fact, Mizuno and Watanabe have similar structures surrounding the damper film. Further, there is no evidence in the prior art to suggest that using Mizuno’s damper film as a filter at the inflow channel would require any significant re-engineering. Moreover, please note that the test for obviousness is not a matter of whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant continues to argue that the Mizuno and Watanabe “references teach fundamentally different and incompatible fluid distribution architectures” because the supply manifolds have different shapes (page 9 of remarks). Please note, however, that the obviousness rejection did not intend to replace Mizuno’s entire ink distribution structure. Rather, the Office Action clearly stated that it was obvious to further configure Mizuno’s damper film as a filter at the inflow channel so as to enable filtering of the marking material.
In light of the above, Examiner has not found any reason to withdraw the previously applied prior art rejection(s).
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, 6, 11-14, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US 2020/0101729 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2023/0135522 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Mizuno discloses a printhead comprising:
a droplet forming layer (at least plates 31-35) comprising droplet forming units (Fig. 5), provided in a plurality of rows extending in a first direction (“conveyance direction”: Figs. 1-2), each droplet forming unit comprising a pressure chamber (40) in fluid connection to an outlet channel (return throttle channel 35b) and an inlet channel (supply throttle channel 35a) for respectively flowing fluid out of and into the pressure chamber (paragraph 38 & Fig. 5) and to a nozzle (10: Fig. 5) for jetting a droplet of fluid by means of a pressure change inside the pressure chamber (paragraph 23); and
a first layer segment (at least plate 22), a second layer segment (at least plate 51), and a third layer segment (at least plate 52) are formed on top of one another in a third direction (“up-down direction”: Fig. 5),
wherein the first layer segment (22) comprises outflow and inflow trenches (return manifolds 42, supply manifolds 41) extending in a second direction (“width direction”: Fig. 4) perpendicular to the third direction (Figs. 1-5) and being in fluid connection to the respective outlet and inlet channels in the drop forming layer (Figs. 5-6); and
wherein the second layer (51) comprises:
outflow channels (return channel holes 63a, 64a) positioned respectively overlapping one of the outflow trenches when viewed in the third direction (Figs. 5-6);
a damper channel (damper chamber 65); and
inflow channels (supply channel holes 61a, 62a) separated from the damper channel by a wall element (unprocessed portion of plate 51), wherein the damper channel and the inflow channel overlap the inflow trench when viewed in the third direction (Figs. 5-6); and
wherein the third layer segment (52) comprises outflow opening channels (return channel holes 63b, 64b) and inflow opening channels (supply channel holes 61b, 62b) in fluid connection to respective outflow and inflow trenches (Figs. 3, 6); and
a damper film (23) provided between the first and second layer segments (Fig. 5), wherein the damper film locally seals the damper channel to form a flexible damper (Fig. 5), and wherein the damper film is configured to allow marking material to flow from the inflow channel to the inflow trench (Figs. 3-6).
Mizuno does not expressly disclose that the damper film is configured as a filter for filtering marking material at the inflow channel.
However, Watanabe discloses a printhead comprising a damper film (damper member 160) that doubles as a flexible damper and a filter (paragraph 52), the damper film being provided between first and second layer segments (between substrates 170, 190: Fig. 2) and which locally seals a damper channel (recess 178) to form a flexible damper (paragraph 51 & Figs. 3-4), and which is further configured as a filter (at filter region 163) for filtering marking material at inflow channels (at supply main channels 156: paragraph 52 & Fig. 4A).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mizuno’s damper film in the manner taught by Watanabe, such that the damper film is also configured as a filter for filtering the marking material flowing from the inflow channels to the inflow trench.
Regarding claim 16:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also disclose that the first layer segment is mounted on the droplet forming layer (Fig. 5), and the second layer segment is positioned between the first and third layer segments (Figs. 3, 6).
Regarding claim 17:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also disclose that the outflow and inflow trenches alternate in the first direction (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 18:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also disclose that the outflow channels are each positioned respectively overlapping one of the outflow trenches (Figs. 3, 5-6).
Regarding claim 19:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also disclose that the outflow and inflow trenches extend continuously in a second direction perpendicular to the first and third directions (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 2:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also discloses that the outflow opening channels and inflow opening channels of the third layer segment (52) are staggered (Fig. 6B), such that wall elements that separate the respective outflow opening channels and inflow opening channels (unprocessed portions of channel plate 52, extending between the supply holes 61b, 62b in the :width direction”) extend continuously in the second direction over a major or a substantial length of the third layer segment (Fig. 6B), wherein neighboring wall elements are connected to one another via a plurality of barrier elements (other unprocessed portions of channel plate 52, e.g. between supply holes 61b/62b and return holes 63b/64b) of the third layer segment (Fig. 6B), the barrier elements being respectively spaced apart from another in the second direction (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 3:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also discloses that the first layer segment (22) has a cross-section perpendicular to the second direction that is substantially constant at least along a full length of the outflow and inflow trenches in the second direction (Figs. 4A, 5), and wherein the third layer segment (52) comprises at least two different cross-sections perpendicular to the second direction that are repeated and/or alternated in the second direction (Figs. 5, 6B), wherein in one of the cross-sections at positions corresponding to at least a portion of the outflow and/or inflow opening channels an open channel is provided (Figs. 5, 6B), whereas a barrier element (an unprocessed portion of channel plate 51) is provided at the positions preventing a flow of marking material in the third direction in the other one of the cross-sections of the other layer segment (Figs. 5, 6B).
Regarding claim 4:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 3, and Mizuno also discloses that, in one of the cross-sections at the positions of the outflow channels (63a, 64a) in the first direction, an open outflow opening channel is provided (Fig. 6A), and at the positions of the inflow opening channels (61a, 62a) in the first direction, a barrier element is provided (Fig. 6A), and wherein in another one of the cross-sections at the positions of the inflow opening channels in the first direction, an open inflow opening channel is provided (Fig. 6A) and at the positions of the outflow opening channels in the first direction, a barrier element is provided (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 6:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also discloses that a plurality of the outflow opening channels (63a, 64a) and inflow opening channels (61a, 62a) respectively overlap each outflow and inflow trench (paragraphs 42-45 & Figs. 4A, 6A), and wherein positions of outflow opening channels in the first and second directions are different from positions of the inflow opening channels (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 11:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also discloses that the outflow trenches (42), the inflow trenches (41), the damper channel (65), the outflow channels (63a, 64a), and the inflow channels (61a, 62a) extend parallel to the second direction (each has a dimension in the “width direction”: Figs. 6), and each comprise a substantially constant cross-section along the second direction (Figs. 6).
Regarding claim 12:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also discloses that, in the third layer segment, barrier elements and outflow opening channels are positioned alternatingly in the second direction over the outflow channel (Figs 6A-B), and barrier elements and inflow opening channels are positioned alternatingly in the second direction over the inflow channel (Figs. 6A-B).
Regarding claim 13:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also discloses that the second and third layer segments are integrally formed (Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 14:
Mizuno’s modified printhead comprises all the limitations of claim 15, and Mizuno also discloses that the printhead is comprised in a printer (Fig. 1).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights