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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the item “438c” described on page 4, line 30 of the specification must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 20230278338 A1) in view of Willmann et al. (EP 1726447 A1).
Kubo discloses the following limitations:
Regarding claim 1, a liquid discharge head (“liquid discharge head 300”, Figure 1) comprising:
a first member (“lower housing 310a”, Figure 1) and a second member (“upper housing 310b”, Figure 1) whose linear-expansion coefficients are different from each other (Paragraph [0022] describes how the “lower housing 310a” was made of a material “having a high thermal conductivity such as metal” while the “upper housing 310b” was made of a material “having a low thermal conductivity such as resin”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art that the disclosed metal and resin materials would have different coefficients of linear thermal expansion because it is well known in the art that metals and resins have different linear/thermal expansion properties. Therefore, this limitation would have been an obvious and predictable result when using reference Kubo.),
the first member (“lower housing 310a”, Figure 1) and the second member (“upper housing 310b”, Figure 1) disposed in contact with each other (Figure 1 displays how the “upper housing 310b” is stacked on top of the “lower housing 310a” as described in paragraph [0021].); and
a coolant duct (“coolant passage 370”, Figure 4) passing through an inside of the second member (Figure 4 displays how the “coolant passage 370” flows through the space in the “upper housing 310b”),
Regarding claim 8, the liquid discharge head according to claim 1, further comprising: a discharge-orifice forming member (Figure 1 displays a “nozzle plate 301” as described in paragraph [0023].) having a plurality of discharge orifices (Figure 1, displays how the “nozzle plate 301” includes a “plurality of nozzles 302” as described in paragraph [0023].) through which liquid is discharged (Paragraph [0023] describes how the “plurality of nozzles 302” that discharges liquid.); and a duct member (Figure 4 displays how the “upper housing 310b” also functions as a duct member for the “coolant passage 370”) including a fluid duct (“channel 312”, Figure 4) through which the liquid to be discharged passes and a part of the coolant duct(Figure 4 displays how the “upper housing 310b” is part of the “housing 310” that allows the ink from the “channel 312” and is also part of the “coolant passage 370”.), wherein the coolant duct has an entrance to the duct member and an exit from the duct member (Figure 4 displays how the “coolant passage 370” enters through the “upper housing 310b” from the left and exits from the right end of the “upper housing 310b” of the “housing 310”.), and wherein the entrance and the exit are located at positions with respect to a center position of the duct member on a plane perpendicular to a direction in which the liquid is discharged from the plurality of discharge orifices (Figure 4 displays how the entrance and exit of the “coolant passage 370” are located at opposite ends with respect to the center of the “upper housing 310b”. The “coolant passage 370”, including the entrance and exit, are perpendicular to the direction in which the ink is discharged from the “plurality of nozzles 302” as shown in Figures 4-5.).
Regarding claim 9, a liquid discharge apparatus (“liquid discharge apparatus 1000”, Figures 8A-8B) comprising the liquid discharge head according to claim1.
Kubo fails to disclose the following limitations:
Regarding claim 1, the coolant duct including a first projecting part and a second projecting part, the first projecting part and the second projecting part projecting in a first direction different from a second direction in which a coolant is sent in the coolant duct, one of the first projecting part and the second projecting part disposed upstream from a contact surface of the first member and the second member in the second direction and the other one of the first projecting part and the second projecting part disposed downstream from the contact surface in the second direction.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first projecting part or the second projecting part is disposed in both the first member and the second member across the contact surface.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the coolant duct has an entrance to the duct member and an exit from the duct member and wherein the entrance and the exit are located at diagonal positions
Willmann teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 1, the coolant duct (“coolant channels 20 and 22”, Figure 6) including a first projecting part (“branch channel 24”, Figure 6) and a second projecting part (“branch channel 28”, Figure 7), the first projecting part (“branch channel 24”, Figure 6) and the second projecting part (“branch channel 28”, Figure 7) projecting in a first direction different from a second direction in which a coolant is sent in the coolant duct (Figures 6 and 7 display how the “branch channels 24 and 28” are projected in a direction perpendicular to the flow direction of the “coolant” is sent in.), one of the first projecting part (“branch 24”, Figure 6) and the second projecting part (“branch 28”, Figure 7) disposed upstream from a contact surface of the first member and the second member in the second direction (Figures 6 and 7 display how a part of the “branch channels 24 and 28” are disposed above the connection between the “channel component 16b” and “printing table bottom plate 34” of the “printing table 10”.), and the other one of the first projecting part (“branch channel 24”, Figure 6) and the second projecting part (“branch channel 28”, Figure 6) disposed downstream from the contact surface in the second direction (Figures 6 and 7 display how a part of the “branch channels 24 and 28” are disposed below the connection between the “channel component 16b” and “printing table bottom plate 34” of the “printing table 10”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Kubo to also apply the coolant duct including a first projecting part and a second projecting part, the first projecting part and the second projecting part projecting in a first direction different from a second direction in which a coolant is sent in the coolant duct, one of the first projecting part and the second projecting part disposed upstream from a contact surface of the first member and the second member in the second direction and the other one of the first projecting part and the second projecting part disposed downstream from the contact surface in the second direction taught by Willmann. This would have been done for the for the purpose of extending the coolant flow path to have a uniform cooling at a constant flow rate (Willmann, paragraph [0023].)
Regarding claim 5, the liquid discharge head according to 1, wherein the first projecting part or the second projecting part is disposed in both the first member and the second member across the contact surface (Figures 6 and 7 display how the “branch channels 24 and 28” are disposed across the connection between the “channel component 16b” and “printing table bottom plate 34” of the “printing table 10”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Kubo to also apply wherein the first projecting part or the second projecting part is disposed in both the first member and the second member across the contact surface taught by Willmann. This would have been done for the purpose of extending the coolant flow path to have a uniform cooling at a constant flow rate (Willmann, paragraph [0023].)
Regarding claim 8, wherein the coolant duct (“coolant channels 20 and 22”, Figure 6) has an entrance to the duct member and an exit from the duct member (“coolant channels 20 and 22” extends through “channels 26 and 36” which has several entrances and exits through the “printing table 10”, Figure 8) and wherein the entrance and the exit are located at diagonal positions (Figure 8 displays how the first entrance of the “channel 26”, located close to the top left corner, is diagonal to the last bottom exit of the “coolant channel 26” that is located close to the bottom right corner of the “printing table 10”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Kubo to also apply wherein the entrance and the exit are located at diagonal positions taught by Willmann. This would have been done for the purpose of ensuring the surrounding members of the coolant channel are uniformly cooled (Willmann, paragraph [0023].)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kubo and Willmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsufuji et al. (US 20100328409).
Kubo as modified by Willman discloses the following limitations:
Regarding claim 6, the liquid discharge head according to 1.
Kubo fails to disclose the following limitations:
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first member and the second member have a coating applied therebetween.
Matsufuji teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 6, the liquid discharge head according to 1, wherein the first member and the second member have a coating applied therebetween (Paragraph [0056] describes how the “frame member 17” is bonded with an adhesive to the “diaphragm member 3”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Kubo to also apply wherein the first member and the second member have a coating applied therebetween taught by Matsufuji. This would have been done for the purpose of connecting the two pieces together
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kubo, Willman, and Matsufuji as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sanada (JP 2006248174 A).
Kubo as modified by Willman discloses the following limitations:
Regarding claim 10, the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 9.
Kubo fails to disclose the following limitations:
Regarding claim 10, a drying device disposed upstream from the liquid discharge head in a conveyance direction of a recording material.
Sanada teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 10, a drying device disposed upstream from the liquid discharge head in a conveyance direction of a recording material (Figure 1 displays a “heating fan 40” that heats up the “recording paper 16” before it reaches the “ink ejection unit 12”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Kubo to also apply a drying device disposed upstream from the liquid discharge head in a conveyance direction of a recording material taught by Sanada. This would have been done for the purpose of heating the recording paper before printing so as to make the ink dry easier after landing on the recording paper (Sanada, paragraph [0034])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7 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 2, the primary reason for allowance of claim 2 is the inclusion of “wherein the first member and the second member have a difference in coefficient of linear expansion equal to or greater than 8x 105/K.”
Regarding claim 3, the primary reason for allowance of claim 3 is the dependency on claim 2 and the inclusion of “wherein the first member is formed of a resin material whose coefficient of linear expansion is equal to or greater than 10x105/K, wherein the first member is a liquid storage to store liquid, and 5 wherein the second member is formed of a material whose coefficient of linear expansion is equal to or smaller than 2x105/K.”
Regarding claim 4, the primary reason for allowance of claim 4 is the inclusion of “further comprising a resistance inside the coolant duct, wherein the resistance is disposed in both the first member and the second member across the contact surface, and wherein the resistance disturbs a flow of the coolant.”
Regarding claim 7, the primary reason for allowance of claim 7 is the inclusion of “further comprising: a coolant-duct member forming a duct adjacent to the first member, wherein the coolant-duct member is a part of the coolant duct, and wherein the coolant-duct member and the first member have a gap filled with a coating.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights