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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 9-10 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: With respect to dependent claim 9, the incorporation of the specific organic solvent provides an invention that is distinct from the generic organic solvent as previously claimed. With respect to independent claim 10, the addition of an independent claim having a further structural limitation of the ink having a surface tension of not greater than 30mN/m at 25℃ provides an invention that is distinct from an ink comprising an alcohol-based organic solvent which has a surface tension of not greater than 30mN/m at 25℃.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-10 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. Cancellation of non-elected claims is hereby requested.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the Examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKAGUCHI et al. (US 2022/0024217 A1) in view of MIZUTANI et al. (US 2021/0276334 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, SAKAGUCHI et al. teaches an image forming apparatus comprising: a nozzle plate comprising two or more nozzle holes and a piezoelectric element [i.e. droplet generator controlled by head driving control unit for driving waveforms used when discharging liquid droplets]; and an ink comprising a solvent comprising an organic solvent comprising an alcohol- based organic solvent with a boiling point not higher than 250 degrees Celsius (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3-4; Page 3, Paragraphs 48-52; and Figures 1 & 2, Shown below), wherein an average number of the two or more nozzle holes on a surface of the nozzle plate is 10 holes/mm², and the two or more nozzle holes adjacent to each other along a direction substantially perpendicular to a conveyance direction of a recording medium is spaced 150 to 500 µm apart [i.e. pitch between nozzles is 1/150” or 169µm] (SAKAGUCHI et al – Page 8, Paragraph 166 and Figure 2, shown below). SAKAGUCHI et al. does not specifically teach the droplet generator is a piezoelectric element. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized the typical droplet generator or driven element in the inkjet printer of SAKAGUCHI et al. would have included a piezoelectric element. Meanwhile, MIZUTANI et al. teaches an image forming apparatus comprising a nozzle plate comprising two or more nozzle holes (MIZUTANI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3-7; Page 5, Paragraph 80; and Figure 3, shown below) and specifically teaches a piezoelectric element as the driven element (MIZUTANI et al. – Page 5, Paragraph 80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to specify the driven element of SAKAGUCHI et al. to be the piezoelectric element of MIZUTANI et al. in an effort to provide a method of recording a high resolution image with a relatively simple apparatus (MIZUTANI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 4).
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of SAKAGUCHI et al. and MIZUTANI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the alcohol-based organic solvent has a boiling point not higher than 180 degrees Celsius [i.e. glycolether compounds] (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 48-52 and MIZUTANI et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 240-246 and Page 14, Paragraph 252).
As related to dependent claim 3, the combination of SAKAGUCHI et al. and MIZUTANI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the alcohol-based organic solvent comprises a glycol ether (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 48-52 and MIZUTANI et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 240-246 and Page 14, Paragraph 252).
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of SAKAGUCHI et al. and MIZUTANI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the alcohol-based organic solvent accounts for not lower than 50 percent by mass of an entire of the solvent in the ink (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 48-52 & Table 2, Examples, Specifically Example 5 and MIZUTANI et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 240-246 and Page 14, Paragraphs 252 & 256).
As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of SAKAGUCHI et al. and MIZUTANI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the ink comprises a resin with a content of 5 to 10 percent by mass to an entire of the ink (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 48-52 & Table 2, Examples, Specifically Example 5 and MIZUTANI et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 240-250).
As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of SAKAGUCHI et al. and MIZUTANI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the ink comprises a urethane resin (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 48-52 & Table 2, Examples, Specifically Example 5 and MIZUTANI et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 240-250).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of SAKAGUCHI et al. and MIZUTANI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the alcohol-based organic solvent has a surface tension of not greater than 30 mN/m at 25 degrees Celsius (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 48-52 & Table 2, Examples, Specifically Example 5 and MIZUTANI et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 240-246; Page 14, Paragraphs 252 & 256; & Table 2).
As related to dependent claim 8, the combination of SAKAGUCHI et al. and MIZUTANI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the ink comprises a surfactant comprising a silicone-based surfactant with an HLB value of 4 or less [i.e. FZ2110: HLB 0; KF-945: HLB 4] (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 10, Paragraph 206 and MIZUTANI et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 62 & Page 15, Paragraph 270).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant did not amend independent claim 1 and with respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that “the contention (that SAKAGUCHI et al. would have included a piezoelectric element) is entirely contrived”; “the purported rationale for modifying the teachings of Sakaguchi is baseless”; and “since the problems addressed by the two references are different, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not [emphasis original] have been motivated to combine them.”.
Applicant's overarching arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “the contention (that SAKAGUCHI et al. would have included a piezoelectric element) is entirely contrived…”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned in the previous rejection and reiterated above, the typical droplet generator or driven element in the inkjet printer of SAKAGUCHI et al. would have included a piezoelectric element, specifically since the head driving control unit of SAKAGUCHI et al. is configured to control driving of the recording head... driving waveforms used when discharging liquid droplets from the recording head (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 7, Paragraph 148) which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the control of a piezoelectric element in a liquid discharging head is done by driving waveforms.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “the purported rationale for modifying the teachings of Sakaguchi is baseless”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned in the previous rejection and reiterated above, MIZUTANI et al. teaches the ejection element is a piezoelectric system which utilizes the drive pressure of a piezoelectric device to eject ink which specifically relates to waveforms which are driven to control a piezoelectric element to cause pressure changes and eject the ink which is different from a thermal system that uses bubbles to eject the ink. (MIZUTANI et al. – Page 5, Paragraph 80). MIZUTANI et al. is used to buttress Examiner’s position that the droplet generator of SAKAGUCHI et al. would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a piezoelectric element.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “since the problems addressed by the two references are different, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine them”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned in the previous rejection and reiterated above: MIZUTANI et al. desires to provide a method of recording a high resolution image with a relatively simple apparatus to achieve high speed and high image quality (MIZUTANI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 4 & 6) and SAKAGUCHI et al. desires to solve the issue of satisfying both productivity and image quality at the same time (SAKAGUCHI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 3). The “problems addressed by the two references” both include improved speed (productivity) and image quality.
As no further arguments were made, the rejection of the dependent claims has been maintained accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gotou et al. (US 11,603,478 B2) teaches an image forming apparatus with the same assignee as SAKAGUCHI et al. and a related inventive entity and continues to specify the droplet generator is preferably a piezoelectric element with a drive waveform applied.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights