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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/17/2025 and 9/4/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CF 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 5-9, 13-14, 17, 19-20, 23, 24, 28, 32, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 15,18-19, 21, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,049,082. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,049,082 uses slightly different terminology and are of slightly different form than the claims of the present Application, Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claims of the Application are fully covered by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,049,082 as evidenced below.
Instant Application
US 12,049,082
2. A method for ejecting fluid from a fluid ejector, the method comprising: actuating a piezoelectric actuator to cause deformation of a membrane defining a wall at a first end of an elongated channel of the fluid ejector, the deformation of the membrane causing ejection of a droplet of fluid from a nozzle disposed at a second end of the elongated channel, wherein the elongated channel fluidically connects one or more first channels to the nozzle, the one or more first channels disposed at the first end of the elongated channel, and wherein an impedance of flow pathways including the one or more first channels is about an order of magnitude greater than an impedance of the elongated channel at a resonant frequency of the fluid ejector.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein at least 60% of the fluid flow induced by the deformation of the membrane is in a direction extending from the first end of the elongated channel to the second end of the elongated channel.
7. The method of claim 2, wherein the impedance of the flow pathways including the one or more first channels is at least ten times greater than the impedance of the elongated channel.
1. A method for ejecting fluid from a fluid ejector, the method comprising: actuating a piezoelectric actuator to cause deformation of a membrane defining a wall at a first end of an elongated channel of the fluid ejector, the deformation of the membrane causing ejection of a droplet of fluid from a nozzle disposed at a second end of the channel, wherein the elongated channel fluidically connects a first channel to the nozzle, the first channel disposed at the first end of the elongated channel, and wherein an impedance of the first channel is at least ten times greater than an impedance of the elongated channel, and wherein deformation of the membrane induces fluid flow along the elongated channel, and wherein at least 60% of the fluid flow induced by the deformation of the membrane is in a direction extending from the first end of the elongated channel to the second end of the elongated channel.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein at least 90% of the fluid flow induced by the actuation is in the direction extending from the first end of the elongated channel to the second end of the elongated channel.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein at least 90% of the fluid flow induced by the actuation is in the direction extending from the first end of the elongated channel to the second end of the elongated channel.
9. The method of claim 2, comprising flowing fluid that is not ejected from the nozzle into one or more second channels disposed at the second end of the elongated channel.
7. The method of claim 6, comprising flowing fluid that is not ejected from the nozzle into a second channel disposed at the second end of the elongated channel.
13. The method of claim 9, comprising after ejection of a droplet from the nozzle, drawing fluid into the elongated channel from the one or more first channels, the one or more second channels, or both.
9. The method of claim 6, comprising after ejection of a droplet from the nozzle, drawing fluid into the elongated channel from the first channel, second channel, or both.
14. The method of claim 2, wherein the elongated channel has a uniform width
along a length of the elongated channel.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the elongated channel has a uniform width long the length of the elongated channel.
17. The method of claim 2, wherein the elongated channel has a uniform impedance along a length of the elongated channel.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the elongated channel has a uniform impedance along the length of the elongated channel.
19. The method of claim 2, in which an extent of a clear area of the membrane is greater than or equal to a width of the elongated channel.
13. The method of claim 1, in which the extent of a clear area of the membrane is greater than or equal to a width of the elongated channel.
20. A fluid ejection apparatus comprising: one or more first channels; a nozzle; an elongated channel fluidically connecting the one or more first channels to the nozzle, wherein the one or more first channels are disposed at a first end of the elongated channel and the nozzle is disposed at a second end of the elongated channel; and an actuator comprising: a membrane defining a wall at the first end of the elongated channel; and a piezoelectric element positioned to apply an actuation force to fluid in the elongated channel, the membrane being disposed between the piezoelectric element and an interior of the elongated channel, wherein an impedance of flow pathways including the one or more first channels is about an order of magnitude greater than an impedance of the elongated channel at a resonant frequency of the fluid ejection apparatus.
23. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 20, wherein the impedance of the flow pathways including the one or more first channels is at least ten times greater than the impedance of the elongated channel.
15. A fluid ejection apparatus comprising: a first channel; a nozzle; an elongated channel fluidically connecting the first channel to the nozzle, wherein the first channel is disposed at the first end of the elongated channel and the nozzle is disposed at the second end of the elongated channel; and an actuator comprising: a membrane defining a wall at a first end of the elongated channel; and a piezoelectric element positioned to apply an actuation force to fluid in the elongated channel, the membrane being disposed between the piezoelectric element and an interior of the elongated channel; wherein an impedance of the first channel is at least ten times greater than an impedance of the elongated channel, and wherein, during operation of the fluid ejection apparatus, deformation of the membrane induces fluid flow along the elongated channel such that at least 60% of the fluid flow induced by the deformation of the membrane is in a direction extending from the first end of the elongated channel to the second end of the elongated channel.
24. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 20, wherein a width of the elongated channel is uniform along an entire length of the elongated channel.
18. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 15, wherein a width of the elongated channel is substantially uniform along the entire length of the elongated channel.
28. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 20, comprising one or more second channels disposed at the second end of the elongated channel.
19. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 15, comprising a second channel disposed at the second end of the elongated channel.
32. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 20, wherein the piezoelectric element is centered about an axis of the elongated channel.
21. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 15, wherein the piezoelectric actuator is centered about an axis of the elongated channel.
35.The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 20, in which an extent of a clear area
of the membrane is greater than or equal to a width of the elongated channel.
26. The fluid ejection apparatus of claim 15, in which the extent of a clear area of the membrane is greater than or equal to a width of the elongated channel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25-27, 29-31, 33-34 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 3 is the inclusion a method steps wherein the elongated channel is centered relative to the one or more first channels. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 4 is the inclusion a method steps wherein the one or more first channels each extends in a direction perpendicular to a length of the elongated channel. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 6 is the inclusion a method steps wherein at least 90% of the fluid flow induced by the actuation is in the direction extending from the first end of the elongated channel to the second end of the elongated channel. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 10 is the inclusion a method steps wherein an impedance of flow pathways including the one or more second channels is about an order of magnitude greater than an impedance of the elongated channel at the resonant frequency of the fluid ejector. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 11 is the inclusion a method steps wherein a cross sectional area of each of the one or more second channels is less than a cross sectional area of the elongated channel. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 12 is the inclusion a method steps wherein a height and a depth of each of the one or more second channels is less than a width of the elongated channel. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 15 is the inclusion a method steps wherein a length of the elongated channel is between three and ten times a width of the elongated channel. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 16 is the inclusion a method steps wherein a height and a depth of each of the one or more first channels is less than a width of the elongated channel. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 18 is the inclusion a method steps wherein a cross sectional area of each of the one or more first channels is less than a cross sectional area of the elongated channel. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 21 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the elongated channel is centered relative to the one or more first channels. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 22 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the one or more first channels are oriented perpendicular to the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 25 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein a length of the elongated channel is between three and ten times a width of the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 26 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein a height and a depth of each first channel is less than a width of the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 27 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the elongated channel has a uniform impedance along a length of the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 29 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein an impedance of flow pathways including the one or more second channels is about an order of magnitude greater than the impedance of the elongated channel at the resonant frequency of the fluid ejection apparatus. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 30 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein a cross sectional area of each of the one or more second channels is less than a cross sectional area of the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 31 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein a height and a depth of each of the one or more second channels is less than a width of the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 33 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the membrane extends across an entire width of the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 34 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein a cross sectional area of each of the one or more first channels is less than a cross sectional area of the elongated channel. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
Claim 36 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 36 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein an impedance of flow pathways including the one or more first channels is about an order of magnitude greater than an impedance of the elongated channel at a resonant frequency of the fluid ejectors. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7651204 B2 discloses a fluid ejection device includes a substrate having a plurality of fluid channels, a flexible membrane supported by the substrate and including a plurality of flexible membrane portions each extending a length of a respective one of the fluid channels, a plurality of actuators each provided on a first portion of a respective one of the flexible membrane portions and adapted to deflect the first portion of the respective one of the flexible membrane portions relative to a respective one of the fluid channels, and a reinforcement member provided on the flexible membrane and supporting a second portion of each of the flexible membrane portions.
TW 200831297 A discloses a fluid ejection device includes a substrate (120; 120') having a fluid channel (160) including a fluid inlet (162) and a fluid outlet (168), a flexible membrane (130) supported by the substrate and extended a length of the fluid channel, an actuator (140) provided on the flexible membrane, and a constriction (165) provided within the fluid channel between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet, such that the actuator is adapted to deflect the flexible membrane relative to the fluid channel, and the constriction supports the flexible membrane between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet.
Communication with the PTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON A POLK whose telephone number is (571)270-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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.
SHARON A. POLK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/Sharon Polk/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853