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 statements (IDS) submitted on 8/15/2025 and 3/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: please find alternate language for the limitation “within a range of the first average speed minus 20% to the first average speed plus 20%”. Specifically, please specifically indicate that the terms “minus 20%” and “plus 20%” are relative to the first average speed. Examiner humbly recommends e.g. “within the range of ± 20% of the first average speed.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Ide (US 2009/0179939 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Ide et al. disclose a liquid discharge head comprising:
multiple nozzles (4) arrayed in a first direction (“main-scanning direction”), the multiple nozzles to discharge droplets in a discharge direction onto a medium (P) conveyed in a second direction (“sub-scanning direction”) intersecting the first direction (Figs. 2, 7); and
a gas-discharge port (gas blowing-out opening 7) between the multiple nozzles adjacent to each other in the first direction (Fig. 2A), the gas-discharge port to discharge gas (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 3:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the head further comprises multiple gas-discharge ports (7) including the gas-discharge port (Fig. 2A),
wherein at least one of the multiple gas-discharge ports is at each portion between the multiple nozzles adjacent to each other in the first direction (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 4:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the gas-discharge port extends in the second direction (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the gas-discharge port extends in at least one of a downstream side and an upstream side from one of positions of the multiple nozzles in the second direction (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the gas-discharge port extends in both a downstream side and an upstream side from one of positions of the multiple nozzles in the second direction (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 10:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the liquid discharge head is comprised in a liquid discharge apparatus (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the gas-discharge port has a length larger than a diameter of each of the multiple nozzles in the second direction (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 14:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and also that the liquid discharge head constantly discharges the gas from the gas-discharge port while discharging the droplets from the multiple nozzles (paragraph 59 & Fig. 2C).
Examiner notes that this limitation amounts to an intended use for the claimed liquid discharge head. Please note, absent a controller configured to perform the claimed gas discharge speed or means plus function language, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art when the prior art device teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brunahl et al. (US 2026/0109147 A1).
Please note that the absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not necessarily indicate allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
Brunahl et al. disclose a liquid discharge head comprising:
multiple nozzles (121) arrayed in a first direction (x-direction), the multiple nozzles to discharge droplets in a discharge direction onto a medium conveyed in a second direction (y-direction) intersecting the first direction (Figs. 2, 5); and
a gas-discharge port (gas orifice 221) between the multiple nozzles adjacent to each other in the first direction (Fig. 2), the gas-discharge port to discharge gas (paragraph 90).
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) 2, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunahl et al. (US 2026/0109147 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 2025/0178336 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Brunahl et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose another gas-discharge port outside an outermost nozzle of the multiple nozzles in the first direction.
However, Miyazaki discloses a liquid discharge head comprising another gas-discharge port (blow-out holes 4), wherein the other gas-discharge port is disposed outside an outermost nozzle of multiple nozzles (3) in the first direction (Figs. 8), so as to further inhibit droplet landing position displacement (paragraph 46).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Brunahl et al.’s liquid discharge head to include another gas-discharge port, such as taught by Miyazaki.
Regarding claim 9:
Brunahl et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the liquid discharge head is comprised in a head unit comprising multiple liquid discharge heads.
However, Miyazaki discloses a head unit (head module 100) comprising a plurality of liquid discharge heads (1: Fig. 11), the head module enabling page wide printing in a single pass (paragraphs 66-69 & Fig. 13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the form a head module, such as that taught by Miyazaki, with Brunahl et al.’s liquid discharge heads.
Regarding claim 11:
Brunahl et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 2, and Miyazaki also disclose multiple gas-discharge ports (4) including the another gas-discharge port (Figs. 8), wherein the multiple gas-discharge ports are disposed outside the outermost nozzle of the multiple nozzles in the first direction (Figs. 8).
Regarding claim 12:
Brunahl et al.’s modified head comprises all the limitations of claim 2, and Miyazaki also disclose multiple gas-discharge ports (4) including the another gas-discharge port (Figs. 8), wherein the multiple gas-discharge ports are outside the outermost nozzle of the multiple nozzles in the first direction (Figs. 8) and arrayed along the first direction (Figs. 8).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (US 2009/0179939 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0375215 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the gas-discharge port discharges the gas in a direction inclined (paragraph 64 & Fig. 5).
Ide et al. do not expressly disclose that the inclined direction is toward a downstream side of the gas-discharge port in the second direction relative to the discharge direction.
However, Takahashi et al. disclose that, by providing a gas discharge direction that is inclined in a direction toward a downstream side of a gas-discharge port (3) in a second direction (A) relative to a discharge direction (Fig. 3), the laminar flow formed near a surface of a recording medium can be destroyed (paragraph 9).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ide et al.’s gas discharge port to include a discharge direction that enables destruction of the laminar flow taught by Takahashi et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as anticipated by Ide et al. (US 2009/0179939 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ide et al. in view of Arimizu et al. (US 2016/0257127 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the liquid discharge head is able to discharge the gas from the gas-discharge port at an average speed of 4 m/s or more and 12 m/s or less in the discharge direction (paragraph 53 & Fig. 2).
Examiner notes that this limitation amounts to an intended use for the claimed gas-discharge port. Please note, absent a controller configured to perform the claimed gas discharge speed or means plus function language, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art when the prior art device teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114.
Alternatively, Ide et al. do not expressly disclose that the liquid discharge head discharges the gas from the gas-discharge port at an average speed of 4 m/s or more and 12 m/s or less in the discharge direction.
However, Arimizu et al. disclose a liquid discharge head (print head 18) comprising a gas-discharge port (gas blowing port 7) that discharges gas at an average speed of 4 m/s or more and 12 m/s or less in a discharge direction, so as to stabilize landing positions of satellite droplets (paragraph 43).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to operate Ide et al.’s liquid discharge head such that the gas is discharged at an average speed of 4 m/s or more and 12 m/s or less in the discharge direction, as taught by Arimizu et al.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as anticipated by Ide et al. (US 2009/0179939 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ide et al. in view of Ohnishi (US 2011/0304868 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Ide et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and also that the liquid discharge head discharges the droplets from the multiple nozzles at a first average speed in the discharge direction (an average droplet speed is inherent: Fig. 2C), and
is able to discharge the gas from the gas-discharge port in the discharge direction at a second average speed within a range of the first average speed minus 20% to the first average speed plus 20% (paragraph 53 & Fig. 2).
Examiner notes that this limitation amounts to an intended use for the claimed liquid discharge head. Please note, absent a controller configured to perform the claimed gas discharge speed or means plus function language, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art when the prior art device teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114.
Alternatively, Ide et al. do not expressly disclose that the gas is discharged from the gas-discharge port at a second average speed within a range of the first average speed minus 20% to the first average speed plus 20%.
However, Ohnishi disclose a liquid ejection head having a nozzle (104) and a gas discharge port (primary airflow blowing port 108), wherein the gas is discharged from the gas-discharge port in the discharge direction at an average speed within the range of ± 20% of the average speed of droplets ejected from the nozzle, so as to more accurately deposit the ink droplet (paragraphs 30-31).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art operate Ide et al.’s liquid discharge head such that the gas discharge speed is that taught by Ohnishi.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights