DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 7, 9, 10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraga (2022/0184967) in view of Misawa et al. (2017/0165964).
Regarding claim 7, Hiraga teaches a liquid discharge head comprising:
a nozzle plate (fig. 14, item 301) having a nozzle (fig. 14, item 302) from which a liquid (see fig. 14) is discharged;
a liquid chamber (fig. 14, item 30) communicating with the nozzle;
a valve (fig. 14, item 331) configured to open and close the nozzle (see fig 14);
a piezoelectric body (fig. 14, item 332) configured to move the valve to open and close the nozzle (see fig. 14); and
circuitry configured to drive the piezoelectric body to:
move the valve to a retracted position (fig. 14C) at which the valve is retracted from the nozzle to open the nozzle;
move the valve to a sealed position (fig. 14B) at which the valve contacts the nozzle plate to close the nozzle; and
move the valve to a half position (fig. 14A) between the retracted position and the sealed position,
wherein the valve does not close the nozzle at the half position (see fig. 14),
the valve is positioned at the retracted position before being moved to the half position (see fig. 14, note that the movement of the piezoelectric body to each shown position happens many times during usage, and thus any shown position can be said to come “before” or “after” any other position. Further, note that “before” is a temporal term, not a structural one)
Hiraga does not teach wherein, within a single discharge operation, the valve is moved in an order from the sealed position to the retracted position, from the retracted position to the half position, from the half position to the retracted position, and from the retracted position to the sealed position to discharge liquid from the nozzle. Misawa teaches wherein a piezoelectric actuator for a liquid discharge head operates to go from a rest state of a liquid pressure chamber to expand the pressure chamber, momentarily contract the pressure chamber to half of a full contraction, expand the pressure chamber again, and then contract the pressure chamber fully in a single discharge operation (Misawa, fig. 5, Note initial expansion T12, half contraction T14, second expansion T22 and full contraction T24-T26. Note that that the term “single discharge operation” could be interpretated as a single droplet or an entire print job). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to apply the expansion/contraction scheme disclosed by Misawa to the valve device of Hiraga because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device to obtain predictable results. Upon application of Misawa’s scheme to the device of Hiraga, the resultant device would operate so that the valve would go from closed to open to half to open to closed.
Regarding claim 9, Hiraga in view of Misawa teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is further configured to change a number of times of reciprocal movement of the valve from the retracted position to the half position (see fig. 14, Note that this could mean almost anything. Every time the position of the valve is changed changes the number of times the valve is moved from one position to another).
Regarding claim 10, Hiraga in view of Misawa teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is further configured to drive the piezoelectric body to perform a reciprocal movement by moving the valve in an opening direction and a closing direction at least two times (see fig. 14, Again, as stated above, a reciprocating movement of the piezoelectric element in opening and closing directions happens millions of times during operation of any given printer).
Regarding claim 12, Hiraga in view of Misawa teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is further configured to drive the piezoelectric body to perform a reciprocal movement by moving the valve in an opening direction and a closing direction at least three times (see fig. 14, Again, as stated above, a reciprocating movement of the piezoelectric element in opening and closing directions happens millions of times during operation of any given printer).
Regarding claim 13, Hiraga in view of Misawa teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 12, wherein performing the reciprocal movement includes moving the valve in an order from the sealed position to the retracted position, from the retracted position to the half position, from the half position to the retracted position, and from the retracted position to the sealed position (see fig. 14, Note that any standard operation includes all of these movements. In other words, the piezoelectric body completes all of the claimed movements in any standard operation while other movements are also completed).
Regarding claim 14, Hiraga in view of Misawa teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is further configured to drive the piezoelectric body to perform a reciprocal movement by moving the valve in an opening direction and a closing direction at least four times (see fig. 14, Again, as stated above, a reciprocating movement of the piezoelectric element in opening and closing directions happens millions of times during operation of any given printer).
Regarding claim 15, see fig. 14, Note that any standard operation includes all of these movements. In other words, the piezoelectric body completes all of the claimed movements in any standard operation while other movements are also completed).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, note that the structure of the prior art device and that claimed is the same, and thus Examiner reasons that the speed of supply and volume of liquid discharged change in the same ways. In other words, moving the piezoelectric body from the sealed position to the retracted position creates a vacuum in the liquid chamber which would draw liquid into the chamber more quickly than if the piezoelectric body was static. Further, more liquid is discharged when the body is moved from retracted to sealed as opposed to when the body is static and no liquid is discharged.
Regarding claim 18, note that anything in the chamber, including bubbles, is pushed out of the nozzles during reciprocal movement of the piezoelectric body.
Regarding claim 19, see Hiraga, fig. 14, Note contact surface of item 331a.
Regarding claim 20, see Hiraga, fig. 14, Note half distance.
Regarding claim 21, see claim 7 rejection, note that upon combination of Misawa with Hiraga, the limitation is met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
