DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sreenivasan et al. (2023/0285966).
Regarding claim 1, Sreenivasan teaches a method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head including a plurality of individual flow passages and a common flow passage, each of the plurality of individual flow passages including a pressure compartment extending in a first direction, a nozzle being in communication with one end of the pressure compartment, and a narrowed portion being in communication with an other end of the pressure compartment and extending in a second direction intersecting with the first direction and being smaller in sectional area than the pressure compartment, the common flow passage being in shared communication with the plurality of individual flow passages, the method comprising:
a first step of forming the narrowed portion by performing metal-assisted chemical etching (fig. 7, step 705) in a state in which a metal film (fig. 8, item 805) is formed at a surface of a first portion (fig. 8, surface of 801 facing upward) corresponding to the narrowed portion (figs. 8, note that “narrowed portion” has not been defined in any way, and thus is being defined simply as the portions corresponding to rounded metal film portions), the surface of the first portion being a part of a first surface of a semiconductor substrate (fig. 8, note that the part of the first surface is being taken to be that corresponding to rounded portions of 805), and the metal film is not formed at a surface of a second portion not corresponding to the narrowed portion (see fig. 8, note that no metal film is formed on surface of silicon substrate 801 with layers 802, 803), the surface of the second portion being a part of the first surface (see fig. 8, note that first and second portions of the first surface correspond to portions without pillars 802/804and portions with pillars, respectively).
(Note that the preamble is not being given patentable weight because it does not give essential structure to the claim. The claimed “narrowed portion” could be any portion of any physical object).
Regarding claim 2, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 1, wherein the first step includes forming a resist layer (fig. 8, item 803) at the first surface, after forming the resist layer, patterning the resist layer to form an opening at the first portion and not to form an opening at the second portion (fig. 7, step 702, see fig. 8, note openings 803 and non-openings 804), and after patterning the resist layer, forming the metal film at the first surface (fig. 7, step 704, fig. 8, item 805).
Regarding claim 3, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 2, wherein before forming the resist layer, forming an oxide film (fig. 7, step 701, fig. 8, item 802) at the first surface, forming the resist layer at the oxide film (see fig. 8), and opening a part of the oxide film (see fig. 8B), the part being on the first portion, by etching the oxide film after patterning the resist layer but before forming the metal film (see fig. 7, 8).
Regarding claim 4, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 3, wherein a gap is formed between the first surface and the resist layer by etching the oxide film (see figs. 7, 8).
Regarding claim 5, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 2, wherein in the first step, the resist layer is removed after forming the metal film at the first surface (see figs. 7, 8).
Regarding claim 6, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 1, wherein in the first step, the metal-assisted chemical etching is performed using a solvent containing hydrogen fluoride and an oxidizing agent ([0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 1, wherein the metal film is made of gold ([0050]).
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) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sreenivasan in view of Takabe et al. (9,254,657).
Regarding claim 8, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 1. Sreenivasan does not teach a liquid ejecting head. Takabe teaches wherein a liquid ejecting head further includes a communication space (Takabe, fig. 5, item 52) extending in the second direction (Takabe, fig. 5, horizontal on page) and communicating the common flow passage (Takabe, fig. 5, item 51) with an external flow passage (Takabe, fig. 5, Note that the common flow passage leads somewhere else, i.e., an “external flow passage”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the flow channel layer 23 of Takabe with the metal-assisted chemical etching technique disclosed by Sreenivasan because doing so would allow for precise creation of the narrowed portion by of the flow channel where other technologies would not allow for such precision.
Upon application of the technique disclosed by Sreenivasan to the head disclosed by Takabe, the resultant device would meet the limitation: in the first step, the narrowed portion and the communication space are formed by performing the metal assisted chemical etching in a state in which the metal film is formed at, of the first surface, a third portion corresponding to the communication space, in addition to the first portion.
Regarding claim 9, Sreenivasan teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 1. Sreenivasan does not teach a second step of forming the common flow passage by performing metal-assisted chemical etching in a state in which a second metal film is formed at a surface of a fourth portion corresponding to the common flow passage, the surface of the fourth portion being a part of a second surface of the semiconductor substrate, the second surface being an opposite of the first surface, and in which the second metal film is not formed at a surface of a fifth portion not corresponding to the common flow passage, the surface of the fifth portion being a part of the second surface. Takabe teaches all of these components, and it would have been obvious, as stated in the rejection of claim 8, to form the components using MACE (see claim 8 rejection. As noted it would have been obvious to form the entire flow channel layer disclosed by Takabe, including the claimed second metal film, second step, fourth portion and second surface, with MACE because doing so would allow precision not allowed by previous etching techniques).
Regarding claim 10, Sreenivasan in view of Takabe teaches the method of manufacturing a liquid ejecting head according to claim 9, wherein the first step and the second step are executed in this order to directly connect the narrowed portion and the common flow passage (Note that, upon combination of references, this would be the case).
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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