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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20100141712 A1; herein referred to as “Kim”).
With respect to Claim 1, a piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) comprising:
a base (see Fig. 6 with the elements discussed below) having:
a slot (i.e., top opening of “chamber 40”; ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6); and
a partition wall partitioning the slot (i.e., wall between two slots “40”; Fig. 6);
a diaphragm bonded to the base (i.e., “70”; ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6) in a bonding direction (i.e., up-down direction; Fig. 6), the diaphragm having:
a first face on the partition wall and covering the slot (i.e., surface of “70” facing the wall between two slots “40”; Fig. 6);
a through hole penetrating the diaphragm in the bonding direction (i.e., “groove 72” penetrates “70” in the up-down direction; ¶0030-0033 & Fig. 6),
the through hole at a position opposed to the partition wall in a transverse direction intersecting the bonding direction (i.e., “groove 72” positioned opposed to the partition wall in right-left direction; Fig. 6), and
the through hole extending along at least a portion of the slot in a longitudinal direction intersecting the bonding direction and the transverse direction (i.e., “groove 72” extends along the longitudinal direction corresponding to the “dividing line S110”, enabling the piezoelectric member to be completely divided; ¶0030-0031).
a piezoelectric element on a second face of the diaphragm opposite the first face of the diaphragm (i.e., “80” facing the surface of the diaphragm “70” that is opposite the first face; ¶0031 & Fig. 5-6).
With respect to Claim 5, Kim teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein
the through hole is longer than the slot in the longitudinal direction (i.e., “groove 72” extends along the longitudinal direction corresponding to the “dividing line S110”, enabling the piezoelectric member to be completely divided; ¶0030-0031). In other words, the through hole “72” extends along the longitudinal direction beyond the slot, so that each piezoelectric actuator can be divided from one another post-manufacturing while all the internal elements (such as the liquid chamber “40”) remain intact.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 8-12, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Satomi (US 20170008286 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Kim teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) according to claim 1.
Kim is silent on further comprising
a filler filling the through hole, wherein
the diaphragm has a first stress in a first direction, and
the filler has a second stress in a second direction opposite the first direction.
Satomi teaches further comprising
a filler filling the through hole (i.e., “filler section 26c” filling the “stress release section 26”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C), wherein
the diaphragm has a first stress in a first direction (i.e., “internal compressive stress of diaphragm 21”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C), and
the filler has a second stress in a second direction opposite the first direction (i.e., “diaphragm 21 is pulled by the tensile stress of the filler section 26c”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by Kim to comprise a filler with opposing stress to the diaphragm, because the filler enables the internal stress of the diaphragm “21” to be reduced (Satomi: ¶0074).
With respect to Claim 4, Kim teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 1.
Kim is silent on
the through hole surrounds the slot in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction.
Satomi teaches
the through hole surrounds the slot in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction (i.e., “through holes (removed sections) 26a” containing a filler “26c” surrounding the top opening of “pressure chamber 23”; Satomi: ¶0030 & Fig. 4). Note that in Satomi’s Fig. 4 which is a plan view, the longitudinal direction is the left-right direction and the transverse direction is the up-down direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by Kim to include a through hole “26” with filler “26c” that surrounds the slot, because this allows the filler to act as a damper on multiple sides of the slot, enhancing the overall dampening in the actuator (Satomi: Fig. 4).
With respect to Claim 8, Kim teaches a liquid discharge head (i.e., “12”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) comprising:
the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 1;
a liquid chamber defined by the slot of the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “chamber 40” with top opening slots; Kim: ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6); and
a nozzle communicating with the liquid chamber (i.e., “nozzle 60” communicates with “chamber 40”; Kim: ¶0029 & Fig. 6).
Kim is silent on a nozzle plate having a nozzle communicating with the liquid chamber.
Satomi teaches a nozzle plate having a nozzle communicating with the liquid chamber (i.e., “ink jet head 5” comprises a “nozzle plate 1”, which has “nozzles 11” communicating with “pressure chambers 23”; Satomi: ¶0022, ¶0025, & Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle in the liquid discharge head taught by Kim (i.e., “12”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) to be set within the nozzle plate taught by Satomi, given this is standard practice in the art, enabling the nozzles to communicate with the liquid chambers in the liquid discharge head (i.e., “ink jet head 5” comprises a “nozzle plate 1”, which has “nozzles 11” communicating with “pressure chambers 23”; Satomi: ¶0022, ¶0025, & Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 9, Kim modified by Satomi teaches a liquid discharge apparatus comprising the liquid discharge head (i.e., an “ink-jet printer” utilizes an “ink-jet head”, such as liquid discharge head “12”; ¶0005-0008 & Fig. 1) according to claim 8.
With respect to Claim 10, Kim teaches a piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) comprising:
a base (see Kim Fig. 6 with the elements discussed below) having:
a slot (i.e., top opening of “chamber 40”; Kim: ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6); and
a partition wall partitioning the slot (i.e., wall between two slots “40”; Kim: Fig. 6);
a diaphragm bonded to the base (i.e., “70”; Kim: ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6) in a bonding direction (i.e., up-down direction; Kim: Fig. 6), the diaphragm having:
a first face on the partition wall and covering the slot (i.e., surface of “70” facing the wall between two slots “40”; Kim: Fig. 6);
a recess at a position opposed to the partition wall in a transverse direction intersecting the bonding direction (i.e., “groove 72” positioned opposed to the partition wall in right-left direction; Kim: Fig. 6), and
the recess extending along at least a portion of the slot in a longitudinal direction intersecting the bonding direction and the transverse direction (i.e., “groove 72” extends along the longitudinal direction corresponding to the “dividing line S110”, enabling the piezoelectric member to be completely divided; Kim: ¶0030-0031);
a piezoelectric element on a second face of the diaphragm opposite the first face of the diaphragm (i.e., “80” facing the surface of the diaphragm “70” that is opposite the first face; Kim: ¶0031 & Fig. 5-6)
Kim is silent on
a filler filling the recess,
wherein the diaphragm has a first stress in a first direction, and
the filler has a second stress in a second direction opposite the first direction.
Satomi teaches
a filler filling the recess (i.e., “filler section 26c” filling the “stress release section 26”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C),
wherein the diaphragm has a first stress in a first direction (i.e., “internal compressive stress of diaphragm 21”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C), and
the filler has a second stress in a second direction opposite the first direction (i.e., “diaphragm 21 is pulled by the tensile stress of the filler section 26c”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by Kim to comprise a filler with opposing stress to the diaphragm, because the filler enables the internal stress of the diaphragm “21” to be reduced (Satomi: ¶0074).
With respect to Claim 11, Kim as modified by Satomi teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 10.
Kim is silent on
the recess surrounds the slot in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction.
Satomi teaches
the recess surrounds the slot in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction (i.e., “through holes (removed sections) 26a” containing a filler “26c” surrounding the top opening of “pressure chamber 23”; Satomi: ¶0030 & Fig. 4). Note that in Satomi’s Fig. 4 which is a plan view, the longitudinal direction is the left-right direction and the transverse direction is the up-down direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by Kim to include a recess “26” with filler “26c” that surrounds the slot, because this allows the filler to act as a damper on multiple sides of the slot, enhancing the overall dampening in the actuator (Satomi: Fig. 4).
With respect to Claim 12, Kim as modified by Satomi teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein
the recess is longer than the slot in the longitudinal direction (i.e., “groove 72” extends along the longitudinal direction corresponding to the “dividing line S110”, enabling the piezoelectric member to be completely divided; ¶0030-0031). In other words, the recess “72” extends along the longitudinal direction beyond the slot, so that each piezoelectric actuator can be divided from one another post-manufacturing while all the internal elements (such as the liquid chamber “40”) remain intact.
With respect to Claim 15, Kim as modified by Satomi teaches a liquid discharge head (i.e., “12”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) comprising:
the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 10;
a liquid chamber defined by the slot of the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “chamber 40” with top opening slots; Kim: ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6); and
a nozzle communicating with the liquid chamber (i.e., “nozzle 60” communicates with “chamber 40”; Kim: ¶0029 & Fig. 6).
Kim is silent on a nozzle plate having a nozzle communicating with the liquid chamber.
Satomi teaches a nozzle plate having a nozzle communicating with the liquid chamber (i.e., “ink jet head 5” comprises a “nozzle plate 1”, which has “nozzles 11” communicating with “pressure chambers 23”; Satomi: ¶0022, ¶0025, & Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle in the liquid discharge head taught by Kim (i.e., “12”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) to be set within the nozzle plate taught by Satomi, given this is standard practice in the art, enabling the nozzles to communicate with the liquid chambers in the liquid discharge head (i.e., “ink jet head 5” comprises a “nozzle plate 1”, which has “nozzles 11” communicating with “pressure chambers 23”; Satomi: ¶0022, ¶0025, & Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 16, Kim as modified by Satomi teaches a liquid discharge apparatus comprising the liquid discharge head (i.e., an “ink-jet printer” utilizes an “ink-jet head”, such as liquid discharge head “12”; ¶0005-0008 & Fig. 1) according to claim 15.
Claim 6 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kim or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Satomi.
With respect to Claim 6, Kim teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein
the through hole has a width equal to or less than half of a width of the partition wall in the transverse direction (see annotated Kim Fig. 6 below, depicting the through hole width as “W2” and the partition wall width as “W3”).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Satomi teaches wherein the through hole (“stress release section 26”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C) has a width equal to or less than half of a width of the partition wall in the transverse direction (see annotated Satomi Fig. 5 below, depicting the through hole width as “W2” as less than half of the partition wall width as “W3”).
PNG
media_image2.png
414
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by Kim to have the claimed dimensions as taught in Satomi’s Fig. 5. Having the through hole width be less than half of the width of the partition wall enables Satomi’s design (as shown in Fig. 5) to include a through hole “26” with enough partition wall spacing to separate the through hole “26” from the slot (i.e., the upper part of “23”), thereby decreasing the likelihood of overspill from “23” into “26”.
With respect to Claim 13, Kim teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008 & Fig. 1) according to claim 10, wherein
the recess has a width equal to or less than half of a width of the partition wall in the transverse direction (see annotated Kim Fig. 6 below, depicting the through hole width as “W2” and the partition wall width as “W3”).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Satomi teaches wherein the recess (“stress release section 26”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C) has a width equal to or less than half of a width of the partition wall in the transverse direction (see annotated Satomi Fig. 5 below, depicting the through hole width as “W2” as less than half of the partition wall width as “W3”).
PNG
media_image2.png
414
1084
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by Kim to have the claimed dimensions as taught in Satomi’s Fig. 5. Having the recess width be less than half of the width of the partition wall enables Satomi’s design (as shown in Fig. 5) to include a recess “26” with enough partition wall spacing to separate the recess “26” from the slot (i.e., the upper part of “23”), thereby decreasing the likelihood of overspill from “23” into “26”.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Satomi, further in view of the following non-patent literature (aka “NPL”) teaching intrinsic properties:
MIT_Polyimide (https://web.archive.org/web/20180331011459/http://www.mit.edu/~6.777/matprops/polyimide.htm & see attached NPL) and
MIT_Silicon_Thermal_Oxide (https://web.archive.org/web/20180125081922/http://www.mit.edu/~6.777/matprops/sio2.htm & see attached NPL).
With respect to Claim 3, Kim modified by Satomi teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 2.
Kim is silent on wherein an absolute value of the second stress of the filler is smaller than an absolute value of the first stress of the diaphragm.
Satomi teaches the filler is composed of polyimide (i.e., “filler section 26c” filling the “stress release section 26” is formed of polyimide; Satomi: ¶0074) and the diaphragm is composed of silicon thermal oxide (i.e., “diaphragm 21” is composed of silicon thermal oxide; Satomi: ¶0032-0033 & Fig. 5).
MIT_Polyimide teaches the absolute value of the second stress of the filler (i.e., Young’s modulus of polyimide is 2.5 GPa; see MIT_Polyimide NPL highlighted section). Note that Young’s modulus is a material property defining the force applied per unit area within the material.
MIT Silicon_Thermal_Oxide teaches wherein an absolute value of the second stress of the filler is smaller than an absolute value of the first stress of the diaphragm (i.e., Young’s modulus of silicon thermal oxide is 57 GPa (dry grown) which is larger than the filler’s Young modulus of taught by MIT; see MIT_Silicon_Thermal_Oxide NPL highlighted section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piezoelectric actuator taught by Kim by using the materials taught in Satomi (i.e., “filler section 26c” composed of polyimide and “diaphragm 21” composed of silicon thermal oxide; ¶0074 & ¶0032-0033), because a piezoelectric actuator having an absolute value of the second stress of the filler (i.e., 2.5 GPa inherent to polyimide; see MIT-_Polyimide NPL highlighted section) be smaller than the an absolute value of the first stress of the diaphragm (i.e., the first stress of 57 GPa inherent to silicon thermal oxide; see MIT_Silicon_Thermal_Oxide NPL highlighted section) enables the filler to act as a damper within the actuator, thereby enhancing the mechanical endurance of the actuator.
Claims 7 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Satomi, further in view of Zhang et al. 2019 (doi:10.3390/polym11060977; herein referred to as “Zhang” and included as NPL).
With respect to Claim 7, Kim modified by Satomi teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 2.
Kim is silent on wherein
the diaphragm contains at least silicon oxide, and
the filler contains at least lead zirconate titanate.
Satomi teaches wherein
the diaphragm contains at least silicon oxide (i.e., “diaphragm 21” contains silicon thermal oxide; Satomi: ¶0032-0033 & Fig. 5)
Zhang teaches wherein the filler contains at least lead zirconate titanate (i.e., a PZT@PPY Aerogel/epoxy resin composite containing lead zirconate titanate which can be used as a “piezo-damping” material; Zhang: Abstract & Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diaphragm taught in Kim (i.e., “70”; Kim: ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6) to contain silicon oxide, because it is known in the art that silicon oxide is a viable material used to manufacture piezoelectric actuator diaphragms used in inkjet printing (i.e., “diaphragm 21” contains silicon thermal oxide and is used in an ink jet head’s piezoelectric element; Satomi: ¶0032-0033, Abstract, & Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filler taught in Satomi (i.e., “filler section 26c” filling the “stress release section 26”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C) to contain lead zirconate titanate (i.e., a PZT@PPY Aerogel/epoxy resin composite containing lead zirconate titanate which can be used as a “piezo-damping” material; Zhang: Abstract & Conclusion), as this filler material enables effective piezo-damping performance (Zhang: Abstract & Conclusion).
With respect to Claim 14, Kim modified by Satomi teaches the piezoelectric actuator (i.e., “2”; Kim: ¶0008; Fig. 1) according to claim 10.
Kim is silent on wherein
the diaphragm contains at least silicon oxide, and
the filler contains at least lead zirconate titanate.
Satomi teaches wherein
the diaphragm contains at least silicon oxide (i.e., “diaphragm 21” contains silicon thermal oxide; Satomi: ¶0032-0033 & Fig. 5)
Zhang teaches wherein the filler contains at least lead zirconate titanate (i.e., a PZT@PPY Aerogel/epoxy resin composite containing lead zirconate titanate which can be used as a “piezo-damping” material; Zhang: Abstract & Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diaphragm taught in Kim (i.e., “70”; Kim: ¶0021-0022 & Fig. 6) to contain silicon oxide, because it is known in the art that silicon oxide is a viable material used to manufacture piezoelectric actuator diaphragms used in inkjet printing (i.e., “diaphragm 21” contains silicon thermal oxide and is used in an ink jet head’s piezoelectric element; Satomi: ¶0032-0033, Abstract, & Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filler taught in Satomi (i.e., “filler section 26c” filling the “stress release section 26”; Satomi: ¶0074 & Fig. 24C) to contain lead zirconate titanate (i.e., a PZT@PPY Aerogel/epoxy resin composite containing lead zirconate titanate which can be used as a “piezo-damping” material; Zhang: Abstract & Conclusion), as this filler material enables effective piezo-damping performance (Zhang: Abstract & Conclusion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights