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 statement (IDS) submitted on November 12, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara (US 20160176189 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 20120147096 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugahara teaches an inkjet printer comprising an array of overlapping printheads wherein: a first printhead in the array is positioned in a first orientation relative to a media path; a neighboring second printhead in the array is positioned in an opposite second orientation relative to the media path (figs. 1-2; ink-jet printer 1, carriage 2, ink-jet head 3, nozzles 10, head units 11-15; ¶[0037]-[0038], [0042]-[0046]).
Sugahara fails to teach or fairly suggest each printhead comprising: a first row of butting print chips connected to a first PCB and a parallel second row of butting print chips connected to a second PCB, the first and second rows of butting print chips having 180 degree rotational symmetry, and data signals corresponding to a first color plane are distributed only via the first PCB of the first printhead; and data signals corresponding to said first color plane are distributed only via the second PCB of the second printhead.
Yamamoto teaches an inkjet printhead comprising: a first row of butting print chips connected to a first PCB and a parallel second row of butting print chips connected to a second PCB, the first and second rows of butting print chips having 180 degree rotational symmetry, and data signals corresponding to a first color plane are distributed only via the first PCB of the first printhead; and data signals corresponding to said first color plane are distributed only via the second PCB of the second printhead (figs. 1-4; driving element 45, wiring 46, nozzles 48, FPCs 74, PCBs 75, ICs 76-77; ¶[0019]-[0020], [0025]-[0028], [0043]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the printhead of Yamamoto into the printer of Sugahara in order to improve the dissipation of heat generated by the circuitry connected to the ejectors.
Regarding claim 2, Sugahara in view of Yamamoto teaches the inkjet printer of claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches wherein each row of butting print chips is configurable for printing two colors of ink (figs. 1-4; driving element 45, wiring 46, nozzles 48, FPCs 74, PCBs 75, ICs 76-77; ¶[0019]-[0020], [0025]-[0028], [0043]-[0052]).
From the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2114:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The recitation of “each row of butting print chips is configurable for printing two colors of ink” in combination with the rest of the claim amounts to a recitation of intended use of the printer due to the fact that print chips are capable of printing ink regardless of the color chosen. Yamamoto recites rows of butting print chips, and would therefore be capable of having each row configurable to eject two colors of ink.
Additionally, the particular details of the inkjet ink are of no patentable significance because the inkjet ink is not a positively required structural element of the claim. Note MPEP 2115 states the “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 4, Sugahara in view of Yamamoto teaches the inkjet printer of claim 1. Yamamoto further teaches each printhead comprises a plurality of ink ports at opposites ends thereof (fig. 4; supply holes 35, discharge holes 36-37; ¶[0023]-[0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 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:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the inkjet printer of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, each printhead is supplied with ink such that an ink ordering in the first and second rows of butting print chips relative to the media path is identical in both the first and second printheads.
Regarding claim 5, he prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the inkjet printer of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, each printhead comprises four ink channels for CMYK printing via the first and second butting rows of print chips, each ink channel extending between a respective inlet port and outlet port positioned at opposites ends of the printhead.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Burke et al. (US 20200108618 A1) teaches an inkjet print module comprising a printhead with four ink channels, wherein two PCBs each connect to two of the channels respectively. Rubio et al. (US 20180018546 A1) teaches an array of line-type printheads and control methods for such a printer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853