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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Specific attention is invited to the Japanese reference mentioned in paragraph [0139] of the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: In Figure 5, there are two occurrences of reference numeral “Zu[1]” and it appears that the right-hand occurrence in the center of the Figure should be deleted and replaced with --Zu[2]--. In particular, note that the other values in the center column of Figure 5 all include [2] such as “QS[2],” “WS[2],” “Vin[2]” and “PZ[2].” In Figure 6, there are two occurrences of the reference numeral “VHA2” and it appears that the lower occurrence near the bottom of Figure 6 should be deleted and replaced with --VLA2-- since the lowermost occurrence appears to illustrate the potential VLA2 described in paragraph [0094]. In Figure 9, there are two occurrences of each of the reference numeral “61s” and “62s.” It appears that the left-hand occurrence of 61s and 62s should be deleted and replaced with --61d-- and --62d-- respectively to appropriate label the drain electrode 61d and the drain coupling terminal 62d, as described in paragraph [0109] of the specification. See, for example, how the similar elements have been labeled, for example, in Figure 8.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
the Y2-, X2- and Z2-directions as discussed in paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0102], [0104], [0150], [0153], and [0159] have not been illustrated or labeled in the drawing Figures.
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. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0049], it is suggested that term “power supply line Ld” be deleted and replaced with the term --power supply line LD-- to use the reference character that is consistent with what is shown in the drawings (Fig. 5).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 2019/0232648 A1) in view of Deng et al. (CN 209710562 U).
With respect to claims 1, 3 and 8, Hiramatsu teaches a liquid dispensing unit 50, 54 including a plurality of driving elements 531 driven by a drive signal (i.e., driving waveform described in paragraph [0051] and for dispensing a liquid (i.e., ink or other fluid as described in paragraph [0094]) in response to driving of the plurality of driving elements, the liquid dispensing unit 50 comprising:
a substrate (i.e., flat support for circuit 56);
a drive signal generation circuit 56 disposed on the substrate and configured to generate the drive signal (i.e., the driving waveforms); and
a heat sink 57 fixed to the substrate, wherein the heat sink includes a main body portion formed of copper or aluminum as described in paragraph [0039]. See, in particular, Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0034]-[0039], [0050]-[0051], and [0067]-[0094].
Hiramatsu fails to specifically teach that the heat sink includes a coating a graphene in a single or multiple layers. However, the provision of a heat sink including a main body portion formed of copper or aluminum and a coating of several layers of graphene for use in a printer is well known in the art, as exemplified by the heat sink of Deng et al. Particular attention is invited to the English language translation of Deng et al. which describes a heat sink construction 1 using a metal coated with a plurality of graphene layers 12 to improve the heat radiating effect of the fin to reduce the surface temperature of the heating object such as an electronic chip. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the heat sink of Hiramatsu to include a coating of graphene layers as taught by Deng et al. to provide a heat sink with better heat dissipation properties.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, note that these claims are a functional recitation of a desired operation and fail to recite any specific structure necessary to provide that function. Note MPEP § 2114 states: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since Hiramatsu teaches all of the structure as recited and is capable of operating in the manner recited, it thereby meets the claim language. However, the Examiner additionally points out that Hiramatsu teaches wherein a part of the liquid dispensed from the liquid dispensing unit is turned into mist, as described in paragraphs [0053], [0059], and [0073].
With respect to claims 4 and 9, Hiramatsu teaches wherein the main body portion includes
a first plate-shaped portion (i.e., horizontal portion of 57 in Fig. 2) extending on a first plane having a first direction (Z) as a normal direction,
a second plate-shaped portion (i.e., left-hand vertical portion of 57 in Fig. 2) coupled to a first part of the first plate-shaped portion and extending on a second plane having a second direction (Y) intersecting the first direction (Z) as the normal direction, and
a third plate-shaped portion (i.e., right-hand vertical portion of 57 in Fig. 2) coupled to a second part of the first plate-shaped portion which is different from the first part and extending on a third plane having the second direction (Y) as the normal direction. See, in particular, Figure 2 of Hiramatsu.
With respect to claims 5 and 10, Hiramatsu teaches wherein
the liquid dispensing unit 54 is mounted on a carriage 52 that moves over a medium M onto which the liquid is dispensed from the liquid dispensing unit 54, and dispenses the liquid when the carriage is moved by a motor 55 for moving the carriage, as described in paragraphs [0034] and [0036] and shown in Figures 1-2.
With respect to claim 6, HIramatsu teaches a liquid dispensing device 50 comprising:
a liquid dispensing unit 54 including a plurality of driving elements 531 driven by a drive signal (i.e., driving waveform described in paragraph [0051]) and for dispensing a liquid in response to driving of the plurality of driving elements 531; and
a drive signal generation unit configured to generate the drive signal, wherein
the drive signal generation unit includes
a substrate (i.e., the flat support for circuit 56),
a drive signal generation circuit 56 disposed on the substrate and configured to generate the drive signal (i.e., the driving waveform), and
a heat sink 57 fixed to the substrate (see paragraphs [0038]-[0039]),
the heat sink 57 includes a main body portion formed of copper or aluminum as described in paragraph [0039]. See, in particular, Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0034]-[0039], [0050]-[0051], and [0067]-[0094].
Hiramatsu fails to specifically teach that the heat sink includes a coating a graphene in a single or multiple layers. However, the provision of a heat sink including a main body portion formed of copper or aluminum and a coating of several layers of graphene for use in a printer is well known in the art, as exemplified by the heat sink of Deng et al. Particular attention is invited to the English language translation of Deng et al. which describes a heat sink construction 1 using a metal coated with a plurality of graphene layers 12 to improve the heat radiating effect of the fin to reduce the surface temperature of the heating object such as an electronic chip. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the heat sink of Hiramatsu to include a coating of graphene layers as taught by Deng et al. to provide a heat sink with better heat dissipation properties.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 of co-pending Application No. 19/089,064 (reference application--hereafter referred to as US ‘064). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the each encompass a liquid dispensing unit comprising a substrate, a drive signal generation circuit, a heat sink comprising a main body of copper or aluminum and a coating a graphene.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With respect to claim 1, note claim 11 of US ‘064 teaches a liquid dispensing unit (line 1) including a driving element driven by a drive signal and for dispensing a liquid in response to driving of the driving element (lines 2-4), the liquid dispensing unit comprising: a substrate (line 15); a drive signal generation circuit disposed on the substrate and configured to generate the drive signal (lines 5-6); and a heat sink fixed to the substrate (lines 18-19). Additionally, claim 17 of US ‘064 teaches wherein the heat sink includes a main body portion formed of copper or aluminum, and the main body portion is coated with graphene (lines 3-5). While claims 11 and 17 do not specifically teach a plurality of the driving elements, note that the provision of a plurality of a known device is an obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, the liquid dispensing unit of claims 11 and 17 render obvious the liquid dispensing unit as recited.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, note that these claims are a functional recitation of a desired operation and fail to recite any specific structure necessary to provide that function. Note MPEP § 2114 states: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 of US ‘064 teach all of the structure as recited and is capable of operating in the manner recited, it thereby meets the claim language.
With respect to claim 3 and 8, claims 7 and 17 of US ‘064 teach the provision of a coating of graphene. While claims 7 and 17 do not particularly recite coating the heat sink multiple layers of graphene, note the provision of a plurality of a known element is an obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, the liquid dispensing unit/device of claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 of US ‘064 render obvious the liquid dispensing unit/device as recited.
With respect to claim 6, note claim 1 of US ‘064 teaches a liquid dispensing device comprising: a liquid dispensing unit including a driving element driven by a drive signal and for dispensing a liquid in response to driving of the driving element (lines 1-4); and a drive signal generation unit configured to generate the drive signal, wherein the drive signal generation unit includes a substrate (line 18), a drive signal generation circuit disposed on the substrate and configured to generate the drive signal (lines 5-9), and a heat sink fixed to the substrate (lines 21-22). Further, claim 7 of US ‘064 teaches the heat sink includes a main body portion formed of copper or aluminum, and the main body portion is coated with graphene (lines 3-5). While claims 1 and 7 do not specifically teach a plurality of the driving elements, note that the provision of a plurality of a known device is an obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, the liquid dispensing device of claims 1 and 7 render obvious the liquid dispensing device as recited.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 of co-pending Application No. 19/089064 in view of Hiramatsu (US 2019/0232648 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
With respect to claims 4 and 9, note claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 of US ‘064 teach a liquid dispensing unit/device as recited with the exception of the particular details of the shape of the heat sink as recited. However, Hiramatsu teaches an ink dispensing unit/device having a heat sink including first, second and third plate shaped portions is well known in the art. Specifically, note Hiramatsu teaches wherein the main body portion includes a first plate-shaped portion (i.e., horizontal portion of 57 in Fig. 2) extending on a first plane having a first direction (Z) as a normal direction, a second plate-shaped portion (i.e., left-hand vertical portion of 57 in Fig. 2) coupled to a first part of the first plate-shaped portion and extending on a second plane having a second direction (Y) intersecting the first direction (Z) as the normal direction, and a third plate-shaped portion (i.e., right-hand vertical portion of 57 in Fig. 2) coupled to a second part of the first plate-shaped portion which is different from the first part and extending on a third plane having the second direction (Y) as the normal direction. See, in particular, Figure 2 of Hiramatsu. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the liquid dispensing unit/device of claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 of US ‘064 with a heat sink having the specific shape as taught by Hiramatsu as it would simply require the selection of a heat sink shape to optimize the amount of contact with the drive signal generation circuit so as to better dissipate heat from the unit/device.
With respect to claims 5 and 10, note claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 of US ‘064 teach a liquid dispensing unit/device as recited with the exception of the particular details of the provision of a carriage and carriage motor for moving the liquid dispensing unit. However, Hiramatsu teaches an ink dispensing unit/device having a carriage and carriage motor for moving the liquid dispensing unit over the medium is well known in the art. Specifically, Hiramatsu teaches wherein the liquid dispensing unit 54 is mounted on a carriage 52 that moves over a medium M onto which the liquid is dispensed from the liquid dispensing unit 54, and dispenses the liquid when the carriage is moved by a motor 55 for moving the carriage, as described in paragraphs [0034] and [0036] and shown in Figures 1-2. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the liquid dispensing unit/device of claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 of US ‘064 with a carriage/motor arrangement for moving the liquid dispensing unit to allow for controlled and precise movement/positioning of the dispensing unit relative to the medium.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ito et al. (EP 3 378 648 A1) and Yamamichi et al. (US 2022/0169010 A1) each teach a liquid discharge unit having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent. Additionally, Xu et al. (TW M606128 U) teaches a heat sink arrangement including a structural body of aluminum coated with graphene material is well known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
