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 A, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 06 January 2026 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)). Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 April 2024 and 25 November 2024, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 10 April 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai (US 2019/0001677) in view of Tamaru et al. (US 2010/0149281).
With respect to claim 1, Kasai discloses a printing head substrate, comprising:
a heating element (Fig. 1A, element 105) configured to control a temperature of the printing head substrate (Fig. 1A, element 100; paragraph 0025) that ejects liquid supplied (paragraphs 0023-0024) from a liquid supply port (Fig. 1A, element 106) from an ejection orifice (Fig. 1B, element 205); and
a driver (Fig. 1A, element 108) configured to drive the heating element (paragraph 0025), wherein
an electrical connection (Fig. 3B, element SH_A1) between the heating element and the driver is made by wiring (paragraphs 0029-0030).
However, Kasai fails to disclose wherein an electrical connection between the heating element and the driver is made by plural pieces of wiring.
Tamaru discloses a printing head substrate (Fig. 1, element 100) having a heating element (Fig. 1, element 10) configured to control a temperature of the printing head substrate (paragraph 0056) and a driver (paragraph 0041, i.e. external control device) configured to drive the heating element (paragraph 0061), wherein an electrical connection between the heating element and the driver is made by plural pieces of wiring (paragraphs 0019-0020).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sub-heater wiring disclosed by Tamaru in the printing head substrate of Kasai. The motivation for doing so would have been “By suppressing the current density at the first connecting portion, the E. M. durability of the wiring sub-heater can be improved without increasing the substrate size” (paragraph 0092).
With respect to claim 2, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the printing head substrate (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 100) includes the plural heating elements (Kasai at Fig. 1A, array of element 105), and the driver (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 108) is connected to the plural heating elements (Kasai at paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 3, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the heating element (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 105) controls a temperature of a partial region (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 107; paragraph 0027) of the printing head substrate (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 100).
With respect to claim 4, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose plural printing elements (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 103) configured to eject the liquid from the ejection orifice (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 205; paragraph 0024).
With respect to claim 5, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the ejection orifice (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 205) and the liquid supply port (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 106) are arranged in a predetermined direction (Kasai at Fig. 1B, i.e. illustrated plane), and the heating element (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 103) is arranged between an array of the ejection orifice and an array of the liquid supply port (Kasai at Fig. 1A, i.e. X or Y direction).
With respect to claim 6, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose wiring width (Tamaru at paragraph 0018, i.e. sectional area) of the plural pieces of wiring (Tamaru at paragraphs 0019-0020) is equal to or smaller than a particle diameter (Tamaru at paragraph 0015) of material of the plural pieces of wiring (Tamaru at paragraph 0060). In addition, Tamaru discloses Black's empirical formula, which is used to achieve a sufficiently long heater life against electromigration (Tamaru at paragraphs 0008-0018).
With respect to claim 7, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose a wiring width (Tamaru at paragraph 0018, i.e. sectional area) of the plural pieces of wiring (Tamaru at paragraphs 0019-0020) is equal to or smaller than an average particle diameter (Tamaru at paragraph 0015) of material of the plural pieces of wiring (Tamaru at paragraph 0060). In addition, Tamaru discloses Black's empirical formula, which is used to achieve a sufficiently long heater life against electromigration (Tamaru at paragraphs 0008-0018).
With respect to claim 8, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the heating element (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 105) is made of polysilicon (Kasai at paragraph 0032).
With respect to claim 9, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 8 above disclose in a space (Kasai at Fig. 1B) including a silicon substrate as a substrate (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 100; paragraph 0025) and an ejection orifice member (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 204) forming the ejection orifice (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 205), the heating element (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 105) is laminated on a side of the silicon substrate (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 201).
With respect to claim 10, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 4 above disclose the heating element (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 105) is made of the same material (Kasai at paragraph 0050) as material of the plural printing elements (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 103).
With respect to claim 11, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 10 above disclose in a space (Kasai at Fig. 1B) including a silicon substrate as a substrate (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 100; paragraph 0025) and an ejection orifice member (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 204) forming the ejection orifice (Kasai at Fig. 1B, element 205), the heating element (Kasai at Fig. 1A, element 105) is arranged on a side of the ejection orifice member (Kasai at Fig. 1B, i.e. X or Y direction).
With respect to claim 12, Kasai in view of Tamaru, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the plural pieces of wiring (Tamaru at paragraphs 0019-0020) is metal that is made of any one of Al, Cu, Ag, Au, Pt, W, Ni, Co, and Si (Tamaru at paragraphs 0060, 0070) or an alloy including any one of Al, Cu, Ag, Au, Pt, W, Ni, Co, and Si (Tamaru at paragraphs 0060, 0070, 0071).
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 PM.
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) 272-5960. 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 02/18/2026