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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended and examined as such.
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.
Claims 1-2 & 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi (US 2008/0239018 A1) in view of NAKAYAMA (US 2020/0180311 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, Sekiguchi teaches a head chip (Sekiguchi – Figure 5, shown below) comprising: a flow channel member in which a plurality of pressure chambers penetrating in a first direction is arranged in a second direction crossing the first direction (Sekiguchi – Figure 2, Reference #17 and Figure 5, Reference #14 and Up/Down is first direction, shown below); a first member which includes an actuator plate deformable in the first direction, and which is bonded on the flow channel member in a state of closing the pressure chambers from a first side in the first direction (Sekiguchi – Page 4, Paragraph 73; Figure 2 and Figure 5, Reference #30, #40, & #31, shown below); and a second member which includes a jet hole plate provided with jet holes communicated with the pressure chambers, and which is bonded on the flow channel member in a state of closing the pressure chambers from a second side as an opposite side to the first side in the first direction (Sekiguchi – Page 4, Paragraph 72; Figure 2, and Figure 5, Reference #10, #13, & #20, shown below), wherein the flow channel member includes a partition wall [i.e. wall separating the adjacent pressure chambers in Figure 5] configured to partition the pressure chambers adjacent to each other (Sekiguchi – Page 4, Paragraphs 72-80; Figures 4 & 5, Reference #2, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
212
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
298
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Continuing with independent claim 1, Sekiguchi does not specifically teach a second bonding area between the partition wall and the second member is larger than a first bonding area between the partition wall and the first member. However, NAKAYAMA teaches a head chip comprising a first member including an actuator plate (NAKAYAMA – Figure 12, Reference #42, shown below) a second member including a jet hole plate (NAKAYAMA – Figure 12, Reference #41, shown below) and a partition wall (NAKAYAMA – Figure 12, Reference #46, shown below) and specifically teaches a second bonding area between the partition wall and the second member is larger than a first bonding area [i.e. there is an unbonded area located between sections of the first member where the partition wall is not bonded to the first member] between the partition wall and the first member (NAKAYAMA – Figure 12, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bonding areas of Sekiguchi with the bonding areas of NAKAYAMA in an effort to provide ample bonding between the partition wall and the relative first and second members and suppress the degradation of the reliability of the head chip (NAKAYAMA – Page 1, Paragraph 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
322
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA remains as applied above and continues to teach a portion of the partition wall, the portion partitioning the pressure chambers adjacent to each other in the second direction, is formed to have a stepped shape in which closer to the first side in the first direction a part is located, smaller a dimension in the second direction of that part is (Sekiguchi – Figure 5, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA remains as applied above and continues to teach the jet hole plate is made of metal (Sekiguchi – Page 4, Paragraph 72 and NAKAYAMA – Page 4, Paragraph 83).
As related to dependent claim 8, the combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA remains as applied above and continues to teach the jet hole plate is directly bonded to the flow channel member (Sekiguchi – Page 4, Paragraphs 72-73 and Figure 5, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA remains as applied above and continues to teach a liquid jet head comprising: the head chip (Sekiguchi – Page 4, Paragraph 71 and Figure 5, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 10, the combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA remains as applied above and continues to teach a liquid jet recording device comprising: the liquid jet head (Sekiguchi – Page 3, Paragraphs 68-69; Page 4, Paragraph 71; Figure 1, shown below; and Figure 5, shown above and NAKAYAMA – Figure 1, shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
424
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
432
464
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sekiguchi (US 2008/0239018 A1) and NAKAYAMA (US 2020/0180311 A1) in view of HIRATA et al. (US 2021/0162757 A1).
As related to dependent claim 3, the combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA remains as applied above and continues to teach the head chip wherein a common flow channel is formed in a portion of the flow channel member (Sekiguchi – Figure 2, Reference #17, shown above), the portion being located at one side with respect to the pressure chambers in a third direction crossing the second direction when viewed from the first direction (Sekiguchi – Figure 2, Reference #17, shown above), a plurality of communication channels which extend in the third direction, and which are configured to individually couple the common flow channel and the pressure chambers to each other is provided to the partition wall (Sekiguchi – Figures 2, 4, & 5, Reference #17 & #14, shown above). The combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA is unclear with respect to the cross-sectional areas. However, HIRATA et al. teaches a head chip having a common flow channel and pressure chambers (HIRATA et al. – Figure 3, shown below), and a flow channel cross-sectional area perpendicular to the third direction of the communication channel is smaller than a flow channel cross-sectional area perpendicular to the third direction of the pressure chamber (HIRATA et al. – Figures 3 & 4, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to clarify the cross-sectional areas of the combination of Sekiguchi and NAKAYAMA by looking at the cross-sectional areas of HIRATA et al. in an effort to provide the available design choices common at the time while ensuring the system can see a reduction in power consumption, improved image quality, and suppressing the manufacturing cost (HIRATA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 6-9).
PNG
media_image7.png
324
642
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
336
602
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 4, the combination of Sekiguchi, NAKAYAMA, and HIRATA et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the flow channel cross-sectional area perpendicular to the third direction of the pressure chamber gradually increases as getting away from the communication channel in the third direction (HIRATA et al. – Figures 3 & 4, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of Sekiguchi, NAKAYAMA, and HIRATA et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the flow channel member includes a coupling part configured to couple portions of the partition wall to each other, the portions facing each other in a direction crossing the first direction, the coupling part facing the pressure chamber, and being located at a position failing to overlap the jet hole when viewed from the first direction (Sekiguchi – Figures 2 & 5, shown above and HIRATA et al. – Page 3, Paragraph 55; Page 4, Paragraph 64 and Figures 3-4, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of Sekiguchi, NAKAYAMA, and HIRATA et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach a polarization direction of the actuator plate is set in the first direction, and the actuator plate includes: a first electrode formed on a first surface of the actuator plate, the first surface facing to the first side in the first direction, a first opposed electrode which is formed on a second surface of the actuator plate so as to be opposed to the first electrode, the second surface facing to the second side in the first direction, and which is configured to generate a potential difference from the first electrode, and a second electrode which is formed on the second surface of the actuator plate so as to be adjacent to the first opposed electrode, and which is configured to generate a potential difference from the first opposed electrode (Sekiguchi – Page 4, Paragraphs 76-83 and Figure 5, Reference #34a & $34b and HIRATA et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 77-78 and Figures 6 & 16, shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
492
356
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
412
326
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamamura et al. (US 10,654,271 B2) teaches a head chip wherein the bonding area of actuator to the cover plate is smaller than the bonding area of the actuator to the nozzle plate.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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 (571) 272-2149. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853