DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-3, 5, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being by unpatentable over Tozuka et al. (2024/0025172) in view of Domae (9,481,169).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Tozuka teaches a liquid ejection head, comprising:
a liquid ejection unit (fig. 4, item 1) including an ejection element substrate (fig. 4, item 114) in which a plurality of ejection ports (fig. 5, items 113) configured to eject a liquid are arrayed in an array direction (fig. 4, into page) and including a plurality of ejection elements configured to generate energy to eject the liquid from the ejection ports (see fig. 5), the array direction being a first direction (see figs. 4, 5),
a first wiring substrate (fig. 4, item 143 on left) and a second wiring substrate (fig. 4, item 143 closest to first wiring substrate) connected with the ejection element substrate and arranged to face each other so as to sandwich the ejection element substrate from a facing direction (fig. 4, horizontal on page) substantially orthogonal to the array direction, the facing direction being a second direction,
a first driving element (fig. 4, item 142 on left) provided on the first wiring substrate and configured to drive the ejection elements ([0073]),
a second driving element (fig. 4, item 142 closest to first driving element) provided on the second wiring substrate and configured to drive the ejection elements (see fig. 4),
a first cooling member (fig. 4, passage within item 1312) configured to cool down the first driving element ([0072]), and
a second cooling member (fig. 4, passage within unlabeled portion of 1312 in center of page) configured to cool down the second driving element ([0072]),
a refrigerant supply section ([0023]) configured to supply a refrigerant to each of the first cooling member and the second cooling member ([0023]),
wherein in the facing direction, the first cooling member, the first driving element, the second driving element, and the second cooling member are arranged in this order (see fig. 4, Note that, as defined, the limitation is met)
wherein the refrigerant supply section comprises a first refrigerant supply member (fig. 3, item 133) having a first refrigerant flow channel (fig. 3, flow channel within item 133) and a second refrigerant supply member (fig. 3, item connecting 133 to items 1312) having a second refrigerant flow channel which is connected to the first refrigerant flow channel (see fig. 3, note that all shown channels are connected),
wherein the refrigerant flows through the first refrigerant flow channel in a third direction (fig. 3, Z direction) orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (compare figs. 3, 4), the refrigerant flows from the first refrigerant flow channel through the second refrigerant flow channel in a flow direction having at least the second direction as a component, then the third direction (see fig. 3, Note that refrigerant flows downward through 133, then it necessarily travels horizontally with a component in the second direction, then it necessarily travels downward again),
wherein the refrigerant circulates within planes perpendicular to the facing direction in the first cooling member and the second cooling member (see figs. 2, 3, Note that cooling members feed refrigerant in the first direction, which falls in a plane that is intersected by the facing direction).
Tozuka does not expressly teach wherein the coolant travels in the second direction after traveling in the third direction the second time through the second refrigerant flow path. Domae teaches this (Domae, see fig. 5, Note that refrigerant flows in a third direction through 13a, a second direction through R(S), the third direction again through Pb’, and then in the second direction again through channel Pb and then into cooling members via Rx, Ry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the flow path structure disclosed by Domae for the structure of Tozuka’s second refrigerant supply member because doing so would amount to applying a known supply structure to a known supply section to obtain predictable results.
Note that it would appear the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that there is that Tozuka teaches a 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st direction refrigerant flow while the claimed invention claims a 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st direction refrigerant flow. According to MPEP 2144, a rearrangement of parts is not patentable if such a rearrangement was an obvious matter of design choice. Here, it could be argued that any number of refrigerant supply arrangements with any number of flow paths and directions would have been obvious given the general structure of the cooling system.
Regarding claim 2, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the first cooling member is fixed so as to press the first driving element in the facing direction, and the second cooling member is fixed so as to press the second driving element in the facing direction (Tozuka, see fig. 4, Note that the cooling members are flat against the driving elements).
Regarding claim 3, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, further comprising: a refrigerant supply member configured to supply a refrigerant to each of the first cooling member and the second cooling member, wherein the first cooling member and the second cooling member are fixed on the refrigerant supply member (Tozuka, [0023], [0102], see fig. 13, item 21162/2116, Note that the cooling members are necessarily connected to cooling circuit 21162 and therefore “fixed on” the supply member).
Regarding claim 5, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein in the facing direction, a first thermally conductive member (Tozuka, fig. 4, item 1312) is provided between the first cooling member and the first driving element, and a second thermally conductive member is provided between the second cooling member and the second driving element (Tozuka, see fig. 4, Note that the entirety of item 1312 is thermally conductive).
Regarding claim 8, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, comprising: a plurality of the liquid ejection units (Tozuka, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 8, wherein the first cooling member is in contact with the first driving elements of the two or more liquid ejection units (Tozuka, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 8, wherein the second cooling member is in contact with the second driving elements of the two or more liquid ejection units (Tozuka, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the first cooling member and the second cooling member cool down the first driving element and the second driving element by a refrigerant supplied from a liquid ejection apparatus including the liquid ejection head on board (Tozuka, [0023], [0102], see fig. 13, item 21162/2116, Note that the cooling members are necessarily connected to cooling circuit 21162 and therefore “fixed on” the supply member).
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tozuka in view of Domae in view of Suzuki et al. (2003/0063449).
Regarding claim 4, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1. Tozuka in view of Domae does not teach wherein in the facing direction, an elastic member is arranged between the first driving element and the second driving element. Suzuki teaches wherein an elastic member urges driving elements into close contact with a heat sink so as to encourage dissipation of heat generated by the driving elements into the heat sink (Suzuki, [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add an elastic member of the type disclosed by Suzuki in between the first and second driving elements disclosed by Tozuka in view of Domae because doing so would urge the driving elements outward into close contact with each respective cooling member, thereby ensuring maximum heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 6, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 5. Tozuka in view of Domae does not teach wherein in the facing direction, an elastic member is arranged between the first driving element and the second driving element. Suzuki teaches wherein an elastic member urges driving elements into close contact with a heat sink so as to encourage dissipation of heat generated by the driving elements into the heat sink (Suzuki, [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add an elastic member of the type disclosed by Suzuki in between the first and second driving elements disclosed by Tozuka in view of Domae because doing so would urge the driving elements outward into close contact with each respective cooling member, thereby ensuring maximum heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 7, Tozuka in view of Domae and Suzuki teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 6, wherein a thickness of the elastic member in the facing direction is thicker than a thickness of each of the first thermally conductive member and the second thermally conductive member (Suzuki, see fig. 6, Note elastic member 27 is thicker than items 23, 25).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tozuka in view of Domae as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (2011/0273497).
Regarding claim 11, Tozuka in view of Domae teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 8. Tozuka in view of Domae does not teach wherein the plurality of the liquid ejection units are arrayed in a staggered pattern. Yamamoto teaches this (Yamamoto, see fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the printheads disclosed by Tozuka in view of Domae in a staggered pattern, as disclosed by Yamamoto, because doing so would have amounted to the simple substitution of one known printhead arrangement for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Tozuka in view of Domae and Yamamoto teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 11, wherein the first cooling member and the second cooling member cool down the plurality of the liquid ejection units in one array out of the plurality of the liquid ejection units arrayed in a staggered pattern (Note that, upon combination of the references, the resultant device would meet the limitation).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tozuka in view of Domae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kachi et al. (11,173,717).
Regarding claim 15, Tozuka in view of Domae teach all claimed limitations except for first and second thermally conductive members provided between respective driving elements and cooling members. Kachi teaches thermally conductive members (Kachi, see fig. 20, Note driving members 116, cooling members 570 and thermally conductive members 575 between the driving members and cooling members). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the thermally conductive members disclosed by Kachi between the driving members and cooling members disclosed by Tozuka in view of Domae because doing so would help absorb heat from the driving elements. Upon combination all positional limitations would be met.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tozuka in view of Domae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kachi and Suzuki.
Regarding claim 16, Tozuka in view of Domae teach all claimed limitations except for first and second thermally conductive members provided between respective driving elements and cooling members. Kachi teaches thermally conductive members (Kachi, see fig. 20, Note driving members 116, cooling members 570 and thermally conductive members 575 between the driving members and cooling members). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the thermally conductive members disclosed by Kachi between the driving members and cooling members disclosed by Tozuka in view of Domae because doing so would help absorb heat from the driving elements. Upon combination all positional limitations would be met.
Suzuki teaches wherein an elastic member urges driving elements into close contact with a heat sink so as to encourage dissipation of heat generated by the driving elements into the heat sink (Suzuki, [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add an elastic member of the type disclosed by Suzuki in between the first and second driving elements disclosed by Tozuka in view of Domae and Kachi because doing so would urge the driving elements outward into close contact with each respective cooling member, thereby ensuring maximum heat dissipation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure of the device, but the amendments fail to distinguish 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
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
