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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raymond et al. (US 2021/0206168 A1), hereinafter Raymond.
Regarding claim 1, Raymond teaches a liquid ejection head including a recording element substrate configured with ejection port surfaces each having a liquid ejection port (figs. 4, 5A-5B, printing module 13, printheads 19, ¶[0042]), the liquid ejection head comprising: a first positioning member configured with a first positioning part including a recess portion opening in a direction of liquid ejection (fig. 5B, fixed guide member 33C, ¶[0046]-[0049]); and a second positioning member configured with a second positioning part, which includes a groove portion opening in the direction of liquid ejection and extending towards the first positioning member (fig. 5A, fixed guide member 33B, ¶[0046]-[0049]), and a third positioning part, which has a flat plane substantially parallel to the ejection port surfaces (fig. 5A, fixed guide member 33A, ¶[0046]-[0049]), wherein the recess portion of the first positioning part is disposed on a straight line extending from the groove portion of the second positioning part (fig. 5B, fixed guide member 33B, fixed guide member 33C, ¶[0048]).
Regarding the recitation of, “wherein the recess portion of the first positioning part is disposed on a straight line extending from the groove portion of the second positioning part,” fig. 5B and ¶[0048] of Raymond show that, although the grooves of the fixed guide members 33B and 33C do not extend along the same line, they do extend along parallel lines in the “down-web direction.” Additionally, fig. 5B clearly shows that “a straight line” can be drawn from the opening of the groove of fixed guide member 33C to the opening of the groove of fixed guide member 33B. This line would not be parallel with the lines along which the guide members 33B and 33C extend, however the the recitation is silent regarding the alignment, whether parallel or otherwise, of the “straight line” relative to the line along which the “groove portion” extends.
Regarding claim 2, Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the first positioning member is arranged on one end in a longitudinal direction of the liquid ejection head, and wherein the second positioning member is arranged on the other end on the opposite side of the one end in the longitudinal direction (figs. 5A-5B, fixed guide members 33B and 33C, ¶[0046]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the groove portion extends in a longitudinal direction of the liquid ejection head (fig. 5A, fixed guide member 33B, ¶[0046]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein a surface forming the groove portion of the second positioning part tilts so as to widen towards the opening (fig. 5A, fixed guide member 33B, ¶[0046]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the recording element substrates is arranged in a longitudinal direction of the liquid ejection head (figs. 4, 5A-5B, printheads 19, ¶[0042], [0046]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 6, wherein the first positioning member and the second positioning member are arranged at positions sandwiching the plurality of the recording element substrates in the longitudinal direction of the liquid ejection head (figs. 5A-5B, printheads 19, fixed guide members 33B and 33C, ¶[0042], [0046]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the liquid ejection head is attachable to a main body of a recording apparatus having a support part (figs. 6-7, alignment fixture 37, ¶[0046]).
Regarding the recitation of, “and wherein the third positioning part abuts against the support part on the plane,” the preamble of claim 18 refers to a “liquid ejection head,” therefore it is assumed that the recitation of “a main body of a recording apparatus having a support part” is not intended to be a positive recitation of the claimed invention. Thus, the recitation of, “the liquid ejection head is attachable to a main body of a recording apparatus having a support part, and wherein the third positioning part abuts against the support part on the plane,” amounts to a recitation of intended use of the liquid ejection head. From the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2114:
"[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. The third positioning part of Raymond (fig. 5A, fixed guide member 33A, ¶[0046]-[0049]) possesses a plane surface that would be capable of abutting a support part of a main body of a recording apparatus. Therefore, the recitation of intended use of claim 18 fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the teachings of Raymond.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond (US 2021/0206168 A1) in view of Gearing-Thomas (WO 2016/102000 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, however Raymond fails to teach or fairly suggest the recess portion is conically shaped.
Gearing-Thomas teaches a recess portion being conically shaped (fig. 3, second elements 28b, pg. 11, line 23-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the conical recess portion of Gearing-Thomas into the liquid ejection head of Raymond to improve the speed of assembly and disassembly of the array of printing modules.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond (US 2021/0206168 A1).
Raymond teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1. Raymond is silent regarding the liquid ejection head comprising an adjustment unit configured to adjust distances of the first positioning member and the second positioning member in the direction of liquid ejection.
However, Raymond teaches an adjustment unit mounted on a fixture opposing the liquid ejection head configured to adjust distances of the first positioning member and the second positioning member in the direction of liquid ejection by adjusting the positions of alignment members that mate with the first and second positioning members (figs. 5A-9, fixed guide members 33A-C, alignment members 35A-C, head alignment fixture 37, movable plates 49, shoulder bolt 53, bias spring 55, ¶[0046]-[0051]).
Thus, the arrangement of parts of the claimed invention amounts to nothing more than a rearrangement of parts taught in the prior art. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the alignment unit into the liquid ejection head of Raymond in order to provide a fine tuning of the position of the printhead over the print medium to optimize image quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the liquid ejection head of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein the second positioning part has a first surface which is one of the sides of the groove portion located closer to the flat plane, wherein the third positioning part has a second surface connected to the flat surface, and wherein the first surface and the second surface are connected on the second positioning member and intersect on an extension line extended in a direction away from the flat plane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As detailed above in the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1), fig. 5B and ¶[0048] of Raymond show that, although the grooves of the fixed guide members 33B and 33C do not extend along the same line, they do extend along parallel lines in the “down-web direction.” Additionally, fig. 5B clearly shows that “a straight line” can be drawn from the opening of the groove of fixed guide member 33C to the opening of the groove of fixed guide member 33B. This line would not be parallel with the lines along which the guide members 33B and 33C extend, however the Examiner’s position on this recitation of the claim, as written, is that the recitation is silent regarding the alignment, whether parallel or otherwise, of the “straight line” relative to the line along which the “groove portion” extends. Therefore, the amended claim 1 fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM EST.
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 Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853