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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 8/23/24, the requirements 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) are met.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on a Form PTO 1449 have been considered.
Specification
The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-5 and 12-16 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. Specifically, Claim 1 recites, and its dependent Claims 2-5 all incorporate, inter alia, “a state where at least a portion of the bubble in the nozzle has a velocity component toward a surface of the liquid chamber that has the element and before liquid to be ejected through the discharge port comes in contact with the surface of the liquid chamber by being drawn into the liquid chamber by contraction of the bubble, the bubble communicates with an atmosphere and the liquid is ejected through the discharge port”. It is not clear how liquid to be ejected through the discharge port can come “in contact with the surface of the liquid chamber by being drawn into the liquid chamber by contraction of the bubble” after the bubble communicates with atmosphere and, therefore, ceases to be a bubble (and can therefore no longer contract and, by this contraction, draw liquid into the liquid chamber).
Similarly, Claim 12 recites, and its dependent Claims 13-16 all incorporate, inter alia, “the bubble communicates with an atmosphere when the bubble contracts and before liquid comes in contact with a surface of the liquid chamber that has the element by being drawn into the liquid chamber by the contraction of the bubble”. It is not clear how liquid can come “in contact with a surface of the liquid chamber that has the element by being drawn into the liquid chamber by the contraction of the bubble” after the bubble communicates with atmosphere and, therefore, ceases to be a bubble (and can therefore no longer contract and, by this contraction, draw liquid into the liquid chamber).
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) 1, 4-5, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. (U.S. 2014/0125735) in view of Irie et al. (U.S. 2021/0291521 A1).
Takei et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a liquid ejection head (Title) comprising:
a liquid chamber (5, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) having an element (1, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that generates thermal energy for ejecting liquid;
a discharge port (opening in the nozzle 2 opposite to the releasing chamber 5, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) through which liquid is ejected;
a nozzle (2, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that communicates between the discharge port and the liquid chamber;
a liquid supply path (7, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that is in communication with the liquid chamber and through which liquid is supplied to the liquid chamber, wherein
the thermal energy forms a bubble in the liquid chamber, and the formed bubble enters the nozzle to eject liquid through the discharge port under pressure of the bubble (§§0066-0067 and Figs. 5A-G), and
in a state where at least a portion of the bubble in the nozzle has a velocity component toward a surface of the liquid chamber that has the element and before liquid to be ejected through the discharge port comes in contact with the surface of the liquid chamber by being drawn into the liquid chamber by contraction of the bubble, the bubble communicates with an atmosphere and the liquid is ejected through the discharge port (§§0066-0067 and Figs. 5A-G).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the discharge port has two projections located on a straight line extending through a center of the discharge port and located on opposite sides of the center to project toward the center (§0058 and Fig. 3A).
Regarding independent Claim 12, a method for ejecting liquid by using a liquid ejection head (Title) comprising a liquid chamber (5, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) having an element (1, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that generates thermal energy for ejecting liquid, a discharge port (opening in the nozzle 2 opposite to the releasing chamber 5, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) through which liquid is ejected, a nozzle (2, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that communicates between the discharge port and the liquid chamber, a liquid supply path (7, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that is in communication with the liquid chamber and through which liquid is supplied to the liquid chamber, and, the method comprising:
generating a bubble in liquid in the liquid chamber by using the element (§§0066-0067 and Figs. 5A-G);
moving the generated bubble into the nozzle (§§0066-0067 and Fig. 5B); and
ejecting liquid through the discharge port under pressure of the generated bubble (§§0066-0067 and Fig. 5C), wherein
the bubble communicates with an atmosphere when the bubble contracts and before liquid comes in contact with a surface of the liquid chamber that has the element by being drawn into the liquid chamber by the contraction of the bubble (§§0066-0067 and Figs. 5D-G).
Takei et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a liquid collection path that is in communication with the liquid chamber on an opposite side of the liquid chamber from the liquid supply path and through which liquid is collected.
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the liquid circulates between an inside and an outside of the liquid chamber.
Regarding independent Claim 12, a liquid collection path that is in communication with the liquid chamber on an opposite side of the liquid chamber from the liquid supply path and through which liquid is collected.
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the liquid to be ejected through the discharge port has a viscosity of 0.002 Pa·s or greater and 0.010 Pa·s or less.
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the liquid circulates between an inside and an outside of the liquid chamber.
Irie et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a liquid collection path (8, §0042 and Fig. 1A) that is in communication with the liquid chamber (3, §0042 and Fig. 1A) on an opposite side of the liquid chamber from the liquid supply path (7, §0042 and Fig. 1A) and through which liquid is collected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the liquid collection path of Irie et al. to the liquid ejection head of Takei et al. to enable continuous ink conditioning, such as deaeration and remixing, to reduce printing defects.
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the liquid circulates between an inside and an outside of the liquid chamber (3, §0042 and Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply liquid circulation of Irie et al. to the liquid ejection head of Takei et al. to enable continuous ink conditioning, such as deaeration and remixing, to reduce printing defects.
Regarding independent Claim 12, a liquid collection path (8, §0042 and Fig. 1A) that is in communication with the liquid chamber (3, §0042 and Fig. 1A) on an opposite side of the liquid chamber from the liquid supply path (7, §0042 and Fig. 1A) and through which liquid is collected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the liquid collection path of Irie et al. to the method of Takei et al. to enable continuous ink conditioning, such as deaeration and remixing, to reduce printing defects.
Regarding Claim 13, wherein using the liquid to be ejected through the discharge port having a viscosity greater than 0.010 Pa·s increases the complexity of the liquid ejection head and printing defects. (§§0003-0004); and that the liquid to be ejected through the discharge port must have an application-specific minimum viscosity (§§0003-0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the viscosity of the liquid to be ejected through the discharge port within prior art conditions through routine experimentation and arrive at a viscosity of 0.002 Pa·s or greater and 0.010 Pa·s or less. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the liquid circulates between an inside and an outside of the liquid chamber (3, §0042 and Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply liquid circulation of Irie et al. to the method of Takei et al. to enable continuous ink conditioning, such as deaeration and remixing, to reduce printing defects.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. (U.S. 2014/0125735) in view of Irie et al. (U.S. 2021/0291521 A1) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Sasaki (U.S. 2005/0280673 A1).
Takei et al. and Irie et al., in combination, disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claims 2-3, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which these Claims depend).
Takei et al. and Irie et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 2, wherein a distance between the discharge port and the surface of the liquid chamber that has the element is 13 μm or greater.
Regarding Claim 3, wherein a distance between the discharge port and the surface of the liquid chamber that has the element is 16 μm or less.
Sasaki discloses the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 2, wherein a distance between the discharge port and the surface of the liquid chamber that has the element is 13 μm or greater. Please note that while the specific example (§0021) is “about 10 μm or less”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the distance through routine experimentation and arrive at the claimed values. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Please note that the breadth of optimization ranges recited by Sasaki for e.g. the diameter of medicinal droplets (3 to 9 μm) or droplets in general (0.1 to 10 μm) suggest a broad range of optimal dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 3, wherein a distance between the discharge port and the surface of the liquid chamber that has the element is 16 μm or less (§0021). See MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the distance within prior art conditions through routine experimentation and arrive at the claimed values.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. (U.S. 2014/0125735) in view of Irie et al. (U.S. 2021/0291521 A1) and Sasaki (U.S. 2005/0280673 A1).
Takei et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 6, a liquid ejection head (Title) comprising:
a liquid chamber (5, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) having an element (1, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that generates thermal energy used to eject liquid;
a discharge port (opening in the nozzle 2 opposite to the releasing chamber 5, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) through which liquid is ejected;
a nozzle (2, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that communicates between the discharge port and the liquid chamber;
a liquid supply path (7, §§0052-0055 and Figs. 1-2) that is in communication with the liquid chamber and through which liquid is supplied to the liquid chamber, wherein
the thermal energy forms a bubble in the liquid chamber, and the formed bubble enters the nozzle to eject liquid through the discharge port under pressure of the bubble (§§0066-0067 and Figs. 5A-G).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein the discharge port has two projections located on a straight line extending through a center of the discharge port and located on opposite sides of the center to project toward the center (§0058 and Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the projections have a width decreasing toward the center of the discharge port (Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 10, wherein the discharge port has two projections projecting toward a center of the discharge port, the two projections are located on a straight line extending through the center of the discharge port and located on opposite sides of the center, and the straight line forms an angle of 45 degrees or less with respect to a flow path axis along the liquid chamber (Fig. 3A).
Takei et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 6, a liquid collection path that is in communication with the liquid chamber on an opposite side of the liquid chamber from the liquid supply path and through which liquid is collected, and
a distance between the discharge port and a surface of the liquid chamber that has the element is 13 μm or greater and 16 μm or less.
Regarding Claim 10, the flow path axis along the liquid chamber connecting the liquid supply path and the liquid collection path.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the liquid circulates between an inside and an outside of the liquid chamber.
Irie et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 6, a liquid collection path (8, §0042 and Fig. 1A) that is in communication with the liquid chamber (3, §0042 and Fig. 1A) on an opposite side of the liquid chamber from the liquid supply path (7, §0042 and Fig. 1A) and through which liquid is collected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the liquid collection path of Irie et al. to the liquid ejection head of Takei et al. to enable continuous ink conditioning, such as deaeration and remixing, to reduce printing defects.
Regarding Claim 10, the flow path axis along the liquid chamber connecting the liquid supply path and the liquid collection path (Figs. 1A, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the axis arrangement of Irie et al. to the liquid ejection head of Takei et al. to enable continuous ink conditioning, such as deaeration and remixing, to reduce printing defects.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the liquid circulates between an inside and an outside of the liquid chamber (§0042 and Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the circulation of Irie et al. to the liquid ejection head of Takei et al. to enable continuous ink conditioning, such as deaeration and remixing, to reduce printing defects.
Irie et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 6, a distance between the discharge port and a surface of the liquid chamber that has the element is 13 μm or greater and 16 μm or less.
Sasaki discloses the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 6, wherein a distance between the discharge port and the surface of the liquid chamber that has the element is 13 μm or greater and 16 μm or less (§0021). See MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of similar ranges. Please note that while the specific example (§0021) is “about 10 μm or less”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the distance through routine experimentation and arrive at the claimed values. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Please note that the breadth of optimization ranges recited by Sasaki for e.g. the diameter of medicinal droplets (3 to 9 μm) or droplets in general (0.1 to 10 μm) suggest a broad range of optimal dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the distance within prior art conditions through routine experimentation and arrive at the claimed values.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. (U.S. 2014/0125735) in view of Irie et al. (U.S. 2021/0291521 A1) and Sasaki (U.S. 2005/0280673 A1) as applied to Claim 7, and further in view of Feinn et al. (U.S. 2013/0187984 A1).
Takei et al., Irie et al. and Sasaki, in combination, disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, all limitations of Claim 7 (from which this Claim depends).
Takei et al., Irie et al. and Sasaki do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, wherein a distance between the two projections of the discharge port is 2.0 μm or greater and 5.0 μm or less.
Feinn et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, wherein a distance between the two projections of the discharge port is 2.0 μm or greater and 5.0 μm or less (§0042 and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the dimensions of Feinn et al. to the liquid ejection head of Takei et al. to enable constructing the liquid ejection head using known parameters.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. (U.S. 2014/0125735) in view of Irie et al. (U.S. 2021/0291521 A1) and Sasaki (U.S. 2005/0280673 A1) as applied to Claim 12, and further in view of Tsujihata (U.S. 2007/0004823 A1).
Takei et al., Irie et al. and Sasaki, in combination, disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 14, all limitations of Claim 12 (from which this Claim depends).
Takei et al., Irie et al. and Sasaki do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the liquid to be ejected through the discharge port has a solid content concentration of 10 wt% or greater and 30 wt% or less.
Tsujihata discloses the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the liquid to be ejected through the discharge port has a solid content concentration of 10 wt% or greater and 30 wt% or less (§0149). See MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the solid content concentration through routine experimentation and arrive at the claimed values.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takei et al. (U.S. 2014/0125735) in view of Irie et al. (U.S. 2021/0291521 A1) and Sasaki (U.S. 2005/0280673 A1) as applied to Claim 7, and further in view of Feinn et al. (U.S. 2013/0187984 A1).
Takei et al., Irie et al. and Sasaki, in combination, disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 16, all limitations of Claim 12 (from which this Claim depends).
Takei et al., Irie et al. and Sasaki do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 16, wherein an ejection rate at which the liquid is ejected through the discharge port is 7.0 m/s or greater and 12 m/s or less.
Feinn et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 16, wherein an ejection rate at which the liquid is ejected through the discharge port is 7.0 m/s or greater and 12 m/s or less (§0037). See MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the solid content concentration through routine experimentation and arrive at the claimed values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV whose telephone number is (571)270-7049. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 X Rodrigues 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.
/ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights