DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the upper surface of the first electrode,” “the upper surface of the second electrode,” “the lower surface of the first electrode” and “the lower surface of the second electrode” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2021/0001640) in view of Ohnishi et al. (7,267,840).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a thermal head comprising:
a substrate (fig. 1, item 100);
electrodes (fig. 1, items 300/312) located on the substrate and extending along a first direction (fig. 1A, horizontal on page) of the substrate; and
a resistor layer (fig. 1, item 500) located on the substrate and on the electrode (see fig. 1);
the electrodes are between the substrate and the resistor layer such that each electrode has a surface consisting of an upper surface in direct contact with the resistor layer and a lower surface in direct contact with the substrate (see fig. 1),
wherein the electrodes comprise a first electrode (fig. 1, highest electrode 312 on page) and a second electrode (fig. 1, electrode 312 just below first electrode on page) adjacently arranged at a predetermined interval in a second direction (fig. 1, not adjacent electrodes 312 at interval in vertical direction on page) intersecting the first direction.
Li does not teach wherein
a first upper surface and a first lower surface have respective central portions each of which is located between double end portions in the second direction, the first upper surface being the upper surface of the first electrode, and the second upper surface being the upper surface of the second electrode,
each of the central portions protrudes in a direction away from the substrate farther than the double end portions,
the first upper surface includes a first inner end portion facing the second electrode,
a first lower surface includes a second inner portion facing the second electrode, the first lower surface being the lower surface of the first electrode,
the second upper surface includes a fourth inner end portion facing the first electrode, the second lower surface being the lower surface of the second electrode,
the first inner end portion protrudes, in the second direction, toward the second electrode closer than the second inner end portion, and
the third inner end portion protrudes, in the second direction, toward the first electrode closer than the fourth inner end portion. Ohnishi teaches this (Ohnishi, see fig. 6, Note that the prior art electrode 75 has same shape as the elected embodiment according to Figure 10 of the immediate application. That is, the electrodes of both the claimed invention and the prior art are substantially elongated ellipses that have four portions, on pointing in each direction, that protrude further than the other portions in those directions. Note also that, as previously explained, the recitation of term “portion” to define all parts of the electrodes is broad enough to support any number of readings of the claims. That is, a “portion” of an electrode of any number of different shapes could be said to constitute a “central portion” or an “end portion” while other parts of the electrode could simply be ignored in the interpretation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the electrode structure disclosed by Ohnishi in the device disclosed by Li because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Li does not go into detail about how exactly its electrodes are formed, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to look to Ohnishi for such a teaching.
Upon application of the electrodes of Li in the manner disclosed by Ohnishi, all of the claimed limitations would be met. That is, applying the electrode shape construction disclosed by Ohnishi to the adjacent electrodes disclosed Li would have two adjacent electrodes with all of the claimed portions facing each other and protruding in the claimed directions.
Note that what seems to differentiate the elected embodiment according to Figure 10 of the immediate application from the prior art is that the bottom surfaces of the electrodes have non-contact ends that are inclined away from the substrate so as to form acute angles with the substrate which is occupied by some material that is neither electrode or substrate. Thus, some portions of the electrodes directly contact the substrate while others have a material between themselves and the substrate as seen in plan view.
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Ohnishi teaches the thermal head according to claim 1, wherein in the at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode, a thickness of the resistor layer located on a central portion along the second direction is smaller than a thickness of the resistor layer located on an end portion along the second direction (Note that, upon applying the shape of the electrode disclosed by Ohnishi to the electrodes disclosed by Li, the resultant structure would meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Ohnishi teaches the thermal head according to claim 1, wherein an unevenness of an interface between the upper surface of the at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode and the resistor layer is larger than an unevenness of an interface between the resistor layer and the substrate (Note that, upon applying the shape of the electrode disclosed by Ohnishi to the electrodes disclosed by Li, the resultant structure would meet the limitation. Also note that “unevenness” has not been defined and could mean any number of things).
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Ohnishi teaches the thermal head according to claim 1, wherein the substrate has a heat storage layer (Li, fig. 2, layer 200) on at least a part of an upper surface (Li, fig. 2, note that heat storing layer 200 is on upper surface of substrate 100); and the electrodes and the resistor layer are located on the heat storage layer (Li, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Ohnishi teaches a thermal printer (Li, fig. 6, item 200), comprising: the thermal head (Li, fig. 6, item 100) described in claim 1; a transport mechanism (Li, fig. 6, item 60) configured to transport a recording medium onto a heat generating part located on the substrate; and a platen roller (Li, fig. 6, item 50) configured to press the recording medium onto the heat generating part (Li, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Ohnishi teaches the thermal head according to claim 1, wherein the first lower surface and the second lower surface are in contact with the head storage layer (Li, fig. 2, Note that all electrodes 300 have lower surfaces in contact with heat storage layer 200).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights