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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morgan et al. (CN 115461226) (hereinafter Morgan et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Morgan et al. teaches a liquid discharge head (101, Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle plate (101A, 101B, Fig. 2A) having multiple nozzle arrays (P1, P2, Fig. 3) each having multiple nozzles (see Fig. 3) arrayed in an array, the multiple nozzles (see Fig. 3) to discharge a liquid onto a recording medium (not shown in Figures) being conveyed in a conveyance direction orthogonal to the array direction (see Figs. 2A and 2B) direction [Abstract and Detailed Description], wherein the multiple nozzle arrays (P1, P2) include: a first nozzle array (P1) having a first distance (NP1, Fig. 3) between both end nozzles of the multiple nozzles (see Fig. 3) at both ends of the first nozzle array (P1) in the array direction (see Figs. 2A and 2B) [Detailed Description]; and a second nozzle array (P2) upstream from the first nozzle array (P1) in the conveyance direction, the second nozzle array (P2) has a second distance (NP2) between both end nozzles of the multiple nozzles (see Fig. 3) at both ends of the second nozzle array (P2) in the array direction (see Figs. 2A and 2B), and the second distance (NP2) is shorter than the first distance (NP1) [Detailed Description and see Fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 2, Morgan et al. teaches the liquid discharge head (101), wherein the nozzle plate (101A, 101B) has a polygonal planar shape [see Figs. 2A and 2B].
Regarding Claim 4, Morgan et al. teaches the liquid discharge head (101), wherein the nozzle plate (101A, 101B) has a rectangular planar shape [see Figs. 2A and 2B].
Regarding Claim 7, Morgan et al. teaches a liquid discharge unit (see Fig. 1) [Abstract] comprising multiple liquid discharge heads (101, Fig. 1) including the liquid discharge head (101) according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle plate (101A, 101B) has a long side and a short side [see Figs. 2A and 2B], and the multiple liquid discharge heads (101)are arranged in a staggered manner in the array direction [Abstract, Detailed Description, and see Figs. 2A and 2B].
Regarding Claim 8, Morgan et al. teaches a liquid discharge unit (see Fig. 1) wherein each end of the first nozzle array (P1) in the array direction of each of the multiple liquid discharge heads (101) is overlapped with each other in the conveyance direction [see Fig. 3].
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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. (CN 115461226) (hereinafter Morgan et al.).
Regarding Claim 3, Morgan et al. teaches the liquid discharge head (101) [Abstract, Detailed Description, and Figs. 2A and 2B and 3].
Morgan et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the nozzle plate has a trapezoidal planar shape, and the multiple nozzle arrays are geometrically similar to the trapezoidal planar shape of the nozzle plate.
Morgan et al. further teaches wherein the nozzle plate has a polygonal planar shape, and multiple nozzle arrays are geometrically similar to the polygonal planar shape of the nozzle plate [see Figs. 2A and 2B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to provide wherein the nozzle plate has a trapezoidal planar shape, and the multiple nozzle arrays are geometrically similar to the trapezoidal planar shape of the nozzle plate would be a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill of the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular trapezoidal shape of the nozzle plate was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The motivation to combine the teachings of Morgan et al. with the holdings of In re Dailey is for the purposes improving alignment and reducing visible error [Detailed Description, Morgan et al.].
Regarding Claim 5, Morgan et al. teaches the liquid discharge head (101) [Abstract, Detailed Description, and Figs. 2A and 2B and 3].
Morgan et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the nozzle plate has a hexagonal planar shape.
Morgan et al. further teaches wherein the nozzle plate has a polygonal planar shape [see Figs. 2A and 2B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to provide wherein the nozzle plate has a hexagonal planar shape would be a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill of the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular hexagonal planar shape of the nozzle plate was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The motivation to combine the teachings of Morgan et al. with the holdings of In re Dailey is for the purposes improving alignment and reducing visible error [Detailed Description, Morgan et al.].
Claim(s) 6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. (CN 115461226) (hereinafter Morgan et al.) in view of Yoshida (2020/0147961) (hereinafter Yoshida).
Regarding Claim 6, Morgan et al. teaches a liquid discharge unit (see Fig. 1) [Abstract] comprising: the liquid discharge head (101, Fig. 1) according to claim 1 [Abstract, Detailed Description, and Figs. 2A and 2B and 3].
Morgan et al. fails to teach a carriage mounting the liquid discharge head to move the liquid discharge head.
Yoshida teaches a carriage mounting the liquid discharge head to move the liquid discharge head [Paragraphs 0117-0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a carriage mounting the liquid discharge head to move the liquid discharge head as taught by Morgan et al. as modified by Yoshida for the purposes of mounting a liquid discharge head [Paragraph 0121, Yoshida].
Regarding Claim 10, Morgan et al. teaches a liquid discharge apparatus (see Fig. 1) [Abstract] comprising: the liquid discharge head (101, Fig. 1) according to claim 1, to discharge the liquid to the recording medium (not shown in Figures) [Abstract, Detailed Description, and Figs. 2A and 2B and 3].
Morgan et al. fails to teach a conveyor to convey the recording medium to the liquid discharge head.
Yoshida teaches a conveyor to convey the recording medium to the liquid discharge head [Paragraphs 0117-0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a conveyor to convey the recording medium to the liquid discharge head as taught by Morgan et al. as modified by Yoshida for the purposes of mounting a liquid discharge head [Paragraph 0121, Yoshida].
Regarding Claim 11, Morgan et al. teaches a liquid discharge apparatus (see Fig. 1) [Abstract] comprising: the liquid discharge unit (see Fig. 1) according to claim 1, to discharge the liquid to the recording medium (not shown in Figures) [Abstract, Detailed Description, and Figs. 2A and 2B and 3].
Morgan et al. fails to teach a conveyor to convey the recording medium to the liquid discharge unit.
Yoshida teaches a conveyor to convey the recording medium to the liquid discharge unit [Paragraphs 0117-0119].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a conveyor to convey the recording medium to the liquid discharge unit as taught by Morgan et al. as modified by Yoshida for the purposes of mounting a liquid discharge unit [Paragraph 0121, Yoshida].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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: The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 9 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid discharge unit that includes a maintenance mechanism to maintain and recover the liquid discharge head; or a main-scanning moving mechanism to move the liquid discharge head in a main scanning direction, wherein the liquid discharge head incorporates at least one of the maintenance mechanism or the main-scanning moving mechanism as a single unit. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, 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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights