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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 28 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 6, & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Murayama (US 11,426,998 B2).
As related to independent claims 1, 10, & 11, Murayama teaches a storage medium [claim 11] storing a control method [claim 10] for a liquid ejection apparatus [claim 1] (Murayama – Figure 1, shown below) comprising: a piezoelectric element; a plurality of individual flow paths each including a nozzle and a pressure chamber (Murayama – Column 10, Lines 1-20 and Figures 3-4, Reference #41, #Cb, & #Ca, shown below) a common supply flow path which communicates in common with the plurality of individual flow paths and through which a liquid is supplied to the plurality of individual flow paths (Murayama – Column 6, Line 22 – Column 7, Line 63; Column 10, Lines 1-20; and Figure 3, shown below); a common discharge flow path which communicates in common with the plurality of individual flow paths and through which a liquid is discharged from the plurality of individual flow paths (Murayama – Column 6, Line 22 – Column 7, Line 63; Column 10, Lines 1-20; and Figure 3, shown below); a first pressure applying portion that applies a first pressure for supplying the liquid to the common supply flow path, to the common supply flow path (Murayama – Column 6, Line 22 – Column 7, Line 63; Columns 9, Lines 53-67; Column 10, Lines 1-20; and Figures 3-4, shown below); a second pressure applying portion that applies a second pressure for discharging the liquid from the common discharge flow path, to the common discharge flow path (Murayama – Column 6, Line 22 – Column 7, Line 63; Columns 9, Lines 53-67; Column 10, Lines 1-20; and Figures 3-4, shown below); a detection portion that detects residual vibration in the pressure chamber after a voltage is applied to the piezoelectric element (Murayama – Column 4, Lines 11-43); and a pressure determination portion that determines each of the first pressure and the second pressure based on the residual vibration detected by the detection portion (Murayama – Column 4, Lines 11-43).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
596
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 6, Murayama teaches only the plurality of individual flow paths serve as a flow path that communicates between the common supply flow path and the common discharge flow path (Murayama – Figure 3, shown above).
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.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (US 11,426,998 B2) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2006/0244772 A1).
As related to dependent claim 4, Murayama does not specifically teach a filter. However, Sekiguchi et al. teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus having multiple flow paths and multiple pressure applying portions (Sekiguchi et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-6 and Figure 2, shown below) and specifically teaches a filter is provided at only one of a first flow path between the first pressure applying portion and the plurality of individual flow paths and a second flow path between the second pressure applying portion and the plurality of individual flow paths, the first flow path includes the common supply flow path, and the second flow path includes the common discharge flow path (Sekiguchi et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-6 and Figure 2, Reference #20, shown below). 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 flow paths of Murayama with the filter in the flow path of Sekiguchi et al. in an effort to provide a filtering portion which filters the ink and maximizes the energy efficiency of an ink droplet ejection (Sekiguchi et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
616
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
320
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 5, the combination of Murayama and Sekiguchi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a cross-sectional area of the common supply flow path in a flow direction of the liquid and a cross-sectional area of the common discharge flow path in the flow direction of the liquid are the same as each other at positions which are symmetrical to a plane passing through the nozzle, among planes having the flow direction of the liquid in the plurality of individual flow paths as a normal direction (Murayama – Figures 3 & 4, shown above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 & 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim [claim 1], but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim [claim 1] and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As related to dependent claims 2-3, the prior art of record does not teach a change in flow path resistance according to a viscosity of the liquid differs between the two common paths. As related to dependent claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach a bypass flow path as claimed. As related to dependent claims 8-9, the prior art of record does not teach the pressure determination portion calculates a candidate for a combination of the first pressure and the second pressure based on the residual vibration…
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SAITO et al. (US 2020/0094547 A1) teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus with a vibration detection circuit. ORIHARA (US 2025/0042149 A1) teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus having a vibration detecting unit. YAMADA (US 2025/0289217 A1) teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus having two pressure applying portions and vibration detection circuits.
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.
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