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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: elements 55-56 (per Fig. 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 12, and 15 are objected to because of informalities. Appropriate corrections are required.
Regarding claim 1:
Please change the recitation of “respectively” (line 11 of the claim) to “respective
Please change each recitation of “respectively the” (line 14 of the claim) to “respective
Regarding claim 2:
Please change the recitation of “the outflow opening channels” (line 3 of the claim) to “
Please change the recitation of “substantially length” (line 4 of the claim) to “substantial
Regarding claim 4:
Please change the recitation of “an barrier” (line 3 of the claim) to “a
Regarding claim 8:
Please change the recitation of “a first and a third layer segments” (line 2 of the claim) to “a first layer segment and a third layer segment
Regarding claim 12:
Please insert commas after the recitation of “wherein” (line 1 of the claim), after the recitation of “the third layer segment” (line 1 of the claim), and after the recitation of “outflow channel” (line 3 of the claim), so as to correct grammatical errors.
Regarding claim 15:
Please change the recitation of “respectively” (line 12 of the claim) to “respective
Examiner requests Applicant’s assistance in reviewing the claims for any additional grammatical errors.
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 1-19 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.
In view of the indefinite claim language, Examiner has applied prior art as best understood.
Regarding claim 1:
This claim requires that the outflow opening channels and inflow opening channels are “in fluid connection to respectively the outflow and inflow trenches, when viewed in the third direction.” It is not clear what scope is covered by the claim construction which comprises channels that are in fluid connection when viewed in a particular direction. Do the channels look like they have fluid connection when viewed from a particular angle, but do not look like they have fluid connection when viewed from a different angle?
Regarding claims 2-14:
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore also fail to meet the requirements of this statute.
Further regarding claim 2:
This claim requires that the wall elements “extend continuously in the second direction over a major or a substantially length of the other one of the layer segments” (lines 3-5 of the claim). The terms “major or substantially length” are unclear, in that an artisan would not be able to determine which wall elements extend in a manner which would infringe on the claim.
Further regarding claim 3:
This claim recites the limitation "the position" (line 8 of the claim). While this claim introduces “positions” at which an open channel is provided (see lines 6-7 of the claim), there is insufficient antecedent basis to reference a single particular position.
Further regarding claim 4:
This claim recites the limitation "the outflow channels" (line 2 of the claim) and “the inflow channels” (line 3 of the claim). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is not clear if these are meant to correspond to the claimed inflow/outflow trenches, to the claimed inflow/outflow opening channels, or to the disclosed inflow channel 43 and outflow channel 41.
Further regarding claim 7:
This claim recites the limitation “the first one of the layer segments” (line 1 of the claim). While the claims specify “one of the layer segments” and “another one of the layer segments,” there is no antecedent basis for such a “first one of the layer segments.”
Further regarding claim 8:
Parent claim 1 is directed towards a printhead that comprises “two layer segments.” One of these segments is required to comprises “outflow and inflow trenches,” which appears to correspond to like-named elements 31-32 of layer 3A. The other of these two segments is required to comprise “outflow opening channels and inflow opening channels,” which appears to correspond to like-named elements 51-52 of layer 3C.
However, claim 8 then also requires “a second layer positioned between a first and a third layer segments.” However, the claim as a whole is unclear. Is Applicant attempting to claim a printhead that requires the two layer segments in addition to the first, second, and third layer segments? If so, it is not clear how each of these claimed layer segments correspond to the underlying disclosure. Is Applicant attempting to claim a printhead that requires first, second, and third layer segments that comprise the “two layer segments”? If so, Applicant has confusingly renamed the “two layer segments” with different nomenclature. How then do the “one of the layer segments” and the “other of the layer segments” correspond to the first, second, and third layer segments?
Further regarding claim 13:
This claim recites the limitation "the second and third layer segments" (line 1 of the claim). While the claims specify “one of the layer segments” and “another one of the layer segments,” there is no antecedent basis for such a “first and third layer segments.”
Regarding claim 15:
This claim requires the second layer segment to comprise “an inflow channels”. It is not clear whether the claim is meant to cover one inflow channel (as suggested by the singular article “an inflow channels”) or plural inflow channels (as suggested by the plural ending “an inflow channels”).
Regarding claims 16-19:
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of claim 15, and therefore also fail to meet the requirements of this statute.
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, 5-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US 2020/0101729 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not necessarily indicate allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
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
two layer segments (at least plates 22, 51) formed on top of one another in a third direction (“up-down direction”), wherein one of the layer segments (at least channel plate 22) comprises outflow trenches (return manifolds 42) and inflow trenches (supply manifolds 41) extending continuously in a second direction (“width direction”: Fig. 4) perpendicular to the first and third directions (Figs. 1-5) and being in fluid connection to respective outlet and inlet channels in the droplet forming layer (Figs. 5-6), and wherein another one of the layer segments (at least channel plate 51) comprises a staggered pattern of outflow opening channels (return channel holes 63a, 64a) and inflow opening channels (supply channel holes 61a, 62a) in fluid connection to respective outflow and inflow trenches (paragraphs 42-45), when viewed in the third direction (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 2:
Mizuno discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the outflow opening channels and inflow opening channels are staggered (Fig. 6A), such that wall elements that separate respective outflow opening channels and inflow opening channels extend continuously in the second direction over a major or a substantial length of the other one of the layer segments (Fig. 6A), wherein neighboring wall elements are connected to one another via a plurality of barrier elements (unprocessed portions of channel plate 51) in the other one of the layer segments (Fig. 6A), the barrier elements being respectively spaced apart from another in the second direction (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 3:
Mizuno discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that a cross-section of the one of the layer segments (22) perpendicular to the second direction 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 other of the layer segments (51) comprises at least two different cross-sections perpendicular to the second direction that are repeated and/or alternated in the second direction (Figs. 5, 6A), wherein an open channel is provided in one of the cross-sections of the other layer segment at the position of at least a portion of the outflow and/or inflow opening channels (Fig. Figs. 5, 6A), 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, 6A).
Regarding claim 5:
Mizuno discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the other one of the layer segments (51) is positioned on the side of the one of the layer segments (22) facing away from the droplet forming layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6:
Mizuno discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that 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 7:
Mizuno discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the one of the layer segments (22) is mounted on the droplet forming layer (Fig. 5) and the outflow and inflow trenches alternate in the first direction (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 14:
Mizuno discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the printhead is comprised in a printer (Fig. 1).
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) 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) 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 respective outlet and inlet channels in the drop forming layer (Figs. 5-6); and
wherein the second layer (51) comprises:
outlet 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
wherein a damper film (23) is 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.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Each of US 2017/0197420 A1, US 2019/0001671 A1, and US 10179453 B2 disclose related printheads having a droplet forming layer and a plurality of layer segments.
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