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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more inputs” (more than one input; only one input 110 is shown) recited in claim 1; the “one or more respective liquids” (more than one liquid) recited in claim 1; the “storage portion” recited in claim 3; the “storage portion defining one or more cavities…wherein the one or more cavities are together in fluid communication with each nozzle outlet and with the one or more inputs” recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more respective liquids” in line 2. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “liquid” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each droplet ejector comprising: a nozzle portion defining a nozzle outlet in fluid communication with a one of the one or more inputs” in lines 4-6. Where there is one input and a plurality of droplet ejectors, it is uncertain how each nozzle outlet is in communication with a respective one of the one input.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "ejection" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a respective liquid” in line 8. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “one or more respective liquids” recited in line 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “storage portion defining one or more cavities…wherein the one or more cavities are together in fluid communication with each nozzle outlet and with the one or more inputs” in lines 2-4. It is uncertain whether the one or more cavities in communication with a respective nozzle outlet and a respective one of the one or more cavities.
In claim 8, line 10, the recitation “extend” is grammatically incorrect.
In claim 9, the recitation “for example” renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “droplets” in line 4. It appears to be a double inclusion of the “one or more droplets” recited in claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the piezoelectric actuator” in line 2. It is uncertain which piezoelectric actuator is being referenced.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the nozzle outlet” in line 2. It is uncertain which nozzle outlet is being referenced.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the nozzle portion” in line 3. It is uncertain which nozzle portion is being referenced.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “at least 100 droplet ejectors,” and the claim also recites “at least 500 droplet ejectors” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more liquids" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the apparatus is fixedly mounted to a support member” in line 2. The preamble is directed to an apparatus. The “support member” appears to exceed the scope of the apparatus because it appears to be a distinct and separate element from the apparatus.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “for use in an industrial process” in line 2. The preamble is directed to an apparatus. The recitation “for use” implies a use claim. Yet the claim fails to recite any use steps. The recitation “an industrial process” implies a method. Yet the claim fails to recite any method steps. The claim appears to cross three statutory classes of inventions. This Office action considers an apparatus.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims are replete with indefiniteness. The above listing is only exemplary. Applicant is required to review and amend all of the claims in their entirety to ensure full compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Failure to correct any indefiniteness is subject to a final rejection in the next Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8, 10, 11 and 14-17 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrews et al. (2011/0284657).
Andrews et al. disclose an apparatus for aerosolizing a liquid, comprising:
one or more inputs 31 for receiving one or more respective liquids 33; and
a plurality of droplet ejectors 35, 39, 45, 47 together in fluid communication with the one or more inputs, each droplet ejector comprising:
a nozzle portion 45, 47 defining a nozzle outlet 47 in fluid communication with a one of the one or more inputs; and
a piezoelectric actuator 39,
wherein each piezoelectric actuator is operable to cause ejection of a respective liquid received by the one of the one or more inputs through the respective nozzle outlet as one or more droplets to thereby generate a liquid aerosol comprising the one or more droplets ejected by each droplet ejector;
wherein the nozzle outlet defined by each of the plurality of droplet ejectors is among no more than one nozzle outlet defined by the respective droplet ejector and in fluid communication with the one of the one or more inputs;
further comprising a storage portion (source of ink 33) defining one or more cavities for storing the one or more respective liquids, wherein the one or more cavities are together in fluid communication with each nozzle outlet and with the one or more inputs, optionally (not positively recited) wherein the storage portion is removable;
further comprising a housing (printer housing) to support the plurality of droplet ejectors, optionally (not positively recited) wherein the storage portion is part of the housing;
further comprising an outlet portion (outlet of the printer housing) defining an outlet through which the liquid aerosol can be output from the apparatus, optionally (not positively recited) wherein the outlet portion is part of the housing;
further comprising a power supply circuit portion 10 to supply power to the piezoelectric actuator of each of the plurality of droplet ejectors, optionally (not positively recited) wherein the power supply circuit portion is supported by the housing, and additionally or alternatively (not positively recited) wherein the apparatus further comprises a power source to supply power to the power supply circuit portion;
further comprising a switch 10 to activate the plurality of droplet ejectors, optionally (not positively recited) wherein the switch is a flow switch responsive to a flow through the outlet;
further comprising a controller 10 to control operation of the plurality of droplet ejectors, optionally (not positively recited) wherein the controller is configured to cause generation of the liquid aerosol at a plurality of discrete times, in response to one or more activation signals, further optionally (not positively recited) wherein the one or more activation signals are received from a remote device, separated from the apparatus, and additionally or alternatively (not positively recited) wherein a first contiguous subset of the plurality of discrete times are regularly spaced, and additionally or alternatively (not positively recited) wherein the one or more activation signals cause generation of the liquid aerosol discretely or continuously over a period of more than 30 minutes, and optionally (not positively recited) wherein the first contiguous subset of the plurality of discrete times extend over the period of more than 30 minutes;
wherein, for each droplet ejector, the nozzle portion and the piezoelectric actuator are formed together by fabrication (see figure 2), and additionally or alternatively (not positively recited) wherein the apparatus further comprises driving circuitry to control operation of the piezoelectric actuator responsive to one or more control signals received thereat;
wherein the driving circuitry 10 comprises a plurality of switchable circuit elements (circuit elements that selectively energize of each drop generator) and is configured to control operation of the plurality of piezoelectric actuators via the plurality of switchable circuit elements to thereby eject droplets of the liquid, and wherein at least one of the plurality of switchable circuit elements is configured to control operation of a subset plurality of the plurality of piezoelectric actuators;
wherein the plurality of droplet ejectors are arranged such that the nozzle outlets are provided in a grid arrangement (see figure 4);
wherein one of the one or more liquids is a non-aqueous solution (ink);
wherein the apparatus is fixedly mounted to a support member (printer);
wherein the apparatus is an industrial apparatus (printer) for use in an industrial process (printing).
Claim(s) 1 and 12 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perduijn (4,418,354).
Perduijn discloses an apparatus for aerosolizing a liquid, comprising:
one or more inputs 19 for receiving one or more respective liquids (ink); and
a plurality of droplet ejectors 1, 3, 7 (further jet nozzle ducts 1; col. 3, l. 10) together in fluid communication with the one or more inputs, each droplet ejector comprising:
a nozzle portion 3, 7 defining a nozzle outlet 15 in fluid communication with a one of the one or more inputs; and
a piezoelectric actuator 23, 25,
wherein each piezoelectric actuator is operable to cause ejection of a respective liquid received by the one of the one or more inputs through the respective nozzle outlet as one or more droplets to thereby generate a liquid aerosol comprising the one or more droplets ejected by each droplet ejector;
wherein the piezoelectric actuator is disposed around the nozzle outlet (in view shown in figure 5), such that deformation of the piezoelectric actuator causes movement of the nozzle portion 3, 7.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews et al. (2011/0284657).
Regarding claim 9, Andrews et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of at least one of the plurality of nozzle outlets having a maximum cross-sectional extent less than 100 microns. Providing a nozzle outlet having a maximum cross section less than 100 microns is merely a change in size. MPEP 2144.04.IV.A. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a nozzle outlet cross section less than 100 microns in Andrews et al. to control droplet size.
Regarding claim 13, Andrews et al. disclose the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of the plurality of droplet ejectors are at least 100 droplet ejectors. Andrews et al. disclose, in paragraph 0009, a plurality of drop emitting drop generators. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided at least 100 droplet ejectors in Andrews et al. to increase printing area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 CHRISTOPHER S. KIM
Examiner
Art Unit 3752
CK
