DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiraga (2022/0184967).
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), and
a distance between the nozzle plate and a contact surface of the valve (fig. 14B, surface of the valve contacting the nozzle plate) in the half position is half a distance between the nozzle plate and the contact surface of the valve in the retracted position (see fig. 14, Note that this is the case. Moreover, note that the claimed contact surface has not been specified to be a surface that contacts the nozzle plate in the sealed position).
Regarding claim 8, Hiraga teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is further configured to drive the piezoelectric body to:
move the valve to the retracted position; reciprocally move the valve from the retracted position to the half position; and move the valve from the retracted position to the sealed position to discharge the liquid from the nozzle (see fig. 14, Note that the movement of the valve is all reciprocal and that the valve moves from every position to every other position repeatedly).
Regarding claim 9, Hiraga teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 8, 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 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 11, Hiraga teaches the liquid discharge head according to claim 10, 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 12, Hiraga 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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the device, but the amendments fail to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights