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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species IA (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Thus, claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species IB-IC, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/26,
An OA on the merits of claims 1-16 as below:
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 claimed “a recess portion via an adhesive agent” (see claim 1, line 3); and “bonding a second substrate to a side of the first substrate . . .” (claim 1, line 7-10) 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
-- “A method for manufacturing a flow path member for a liquid discharge head”--
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claims clearly drawn to the method for manufacturing a flow path member for a printing liquid discharge head (see claim 16, lines 2-3) therefore it is suggested further define the preamble (see below) to reflect a subject matter to which Applicant intended to claim.
-- A method for manufacturing a flow path member of a liquid discharge head, the method comprising steps of:”—, for clarity of the claim scope. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 is/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.
“is supported”(claim 1, line 6); “is configured”(claim 1, line 9) is/are not active method limitations.
“in a period” (claim 1 line 10) should be more specific since it is not known as to exactly what time frame Applicant being referring as “a period”. Appears to be “until the adhesive agent fully cured”.
“is cured” (claim 2, line 1) not an active method limitation, should be “curing the . . .by heating”.
Claims 3-4 appears to be directed to the properties of the support versus the flexible member which does not further limit the method as claimed.
“is cured” (claim 5, line 1) not an active method limitation.
“a thinning process for reducing a thickness of the support member” (claim 6, lines 1-2) does not agreed with that as in lines 10-11 of claim 1, appears to be “thinning the support member until it completely removed from the flexible member”.
“is reduced”(claim 7, line 2), “is formed”(claim 9, lines 1-2), “is removed”(claim 10, line 2) not an active method limitation.
Claims 11-12 directed to the material density and/or stiffness does not further limit the method as claimed.
Claim 13-15 directed to materials structures rather than the method of forming.
Scope of claim 16 is unclear since the elected base claim directed to solely a making of a flow path member and claim 16 directed to un intended use of the claimed flow path member which does not further limit the base claim 1 and made scope of the claim 16 unclear.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaginuma et al (US20200335391).
Yaginuma et al discloses the claimed A method for manufacturing a flow path member, the method comprising:
bringing a flexible member 5 into contact with a first substrate 1 including a recessed 3 portion via an adhesive agent 4 so as to cover the recessed portion, wherein the flexible member 5 is configured to suppress vibrations of a liquid in a flow path (see Fig. 3A-3B);
curing the adhesive agent 4 in a state where at least an area of the flexible member covering the recessed portion is supported by a support member 30;
bonding a second substrate 6 to a side of the first substrate with which the flexible member 5 is brought into contact, wherein the second substrate is configured to form the flow path facing the flexible member (see Fig. 3C); and
removing the support member 30 from the flexible member in a period after the curing and before the bonding (see Fig. 3C).
Note that the resin layer 4 of the reference as broadly as readable as the claimed “adhesive agent since no exactly agent is defined in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt
Prosecution Insights