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
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 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, 2, 4-7, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirai et al. (2020/0307197) (hereinafter Hirai et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirai et al. teaches a liquid ejecting head (12, Figs. 1-2) [Paragraphs 0029 and 0034] comprising a channel structure (see Figs. 3A-3B) having a first channel group (60a, Fig. 3A), the first channel group (60a) including: a supply channel (51a, Fig. 3A) extending in a first direction from one end thereof provided with a supply port (58a, Fig. 3A) [Paragraphs 0041, 0044-0045]; a return channel (51b, Fig. 3A) extending in the first direction from one end thereof provided with a discharge port (59b, Fig. 3A) and arranged side by side with the supply channel (51a) in a second direction crossing the first direction [Paragraphs 0041 and 0068]; a plurality of first individual channels (60a) aligned in the first direction, each of the first individual channels (60a) having a nozzle (57a, Fig. 3A), one end communicating with the supply channel (51a) and the other end communicating with the return channel (52a) [Paragraphs 0044-0047]; a second individual channel (60a) having one end communicating with the supply channel (51a) and the other end communicating with the return channel (52a) [Paragraphs 0047-0049]; and a connecting channel (70, Fig. 3A) connecting the other end in the first direction of the supply channel (51a) and the other end in the first direction of the return channel (52b) [Paragraph 0050], wherein the second individual channel (60a) is configured to cause liquid to flow from the supply channel (51a) to the return channel (52a), without causing the liquid to be ejected outside [Paragraph 0050], and the second individual channel (60a) is positioned between the one end and the other end of the supply channel (51a), and at least one of the first individual channels (60a) is positioned, in the first direction, between the second individual channel (60a) and the other end of the supply channel (51a) [See Figs. 3A-3B] .
Regarding Claim 2, Hirai et al. teaches the liquid ejecting head (12), wherein the first channel group (60a) includes a plurality of second individual channels (60a) including the second individual channel (60a) [Paragraphs 0044-0047].
Regarding Claim 4, Hirai et al. teaches the liquid ejecting head (12), wherein the channel structure (see Figs. 3A-3B) further has a second channel group (60b,Figs.3A-3B) arranged side by side with the first channel group (60a) in a third direction crossing the first direction [Paragraph 0048], the second channel group (60b) has at least the supply channel(51b, Fig.3A), the return channel (52b, Fig. 3A), the first individual channels (60b) and the connecting channel (70) [Paragraphs 0048-0050], and a total number of the first individual channels (60a) and the second individual channel (60a) of the first channel group (60a) and a total number of the first individual channels (60b) and the second individual channel (60b) of the second channel group (60b) are same [Fig. 3A].
Regarding Claim 5, Hirai et al. teaches The liquid ejecting head according to claim 1, wherein the channel structure (see Figs. 3A-3B) is constructed by stacking a plurality of plates (not shown in Figures) [Paragraph 0039], each of the first individual channels (60a) and the second individual channel (60b) are constructed by connecting holes each of which is formed in one of the plates (not shown in Figures) [Paragraph 0039], and the first individual channels (60a) and the second individual channel (60b0 are aligned in the first direction at equal spacing distances therebetween [See Figs. 3A-3B].
Regarding Claim 6, Hirai et al. teaches the liquid ejecting head (12), wherein the first individual channels (60a) and the second individual channel (60b) are arranged, with respect to the supply channel (51a, 52a), on one side in a third direction crossing the first direction [See Fig. 3A].
Regarding Claim 7, Hirai et al. teaches the liquid ejecting head (12), wherein the first individual channels (60a) are arranged, with respect to the supply channel (51a), on one side in a third direction crossing the first direction, and the second individual channel (60b) is arranged, with respect to the supply channel (52a), on the other side in the third direction [See Fig. 3A].
Regarding Claim 10, Hirai et al. teaches the liquid ejecting head (12), wherein a shape of each of the first individual channels (60a) and a shape of the second individual channel (60b) are same [See Fig. 3A].
Regarding Claim 12, Hirai et al. teaches the liquid ejecting head (12), wherein the second direction is orthogonal to a width direction, of the supply channel, which is orthogonal to the first direction [See Figs. 2-3A].
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al. (2020/0307197) (hereinafter Hirai et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Hirai et al. teaches the liquid ejecting head (12, Fig. 1) [Paragraphs 0029, 0034, 0041, 0044-0050, and 0068].
Hirai et al. fails to teach wherein a difference between a first channel resistance from the one end to the other end in each of the first individual channels and a second channel resistance from the one end to the other end in the second individual channel is equal to or less than 10 % of the first channel resistance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a difference between a first channel resistance from the one end to the other end in each of the first individual channels and a second channel resistance from the one end to the other end in the second individual channel is equal to or less than 10 % of the first channel resistance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 216 (CCPA 1980). The motivation to combine the teachings of Hirai et al. and the holdings of In re Boesch is for the purposes of customizing the level of channel resistance [Paragraphs 0110-0111].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 are 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:
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 3 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejecting head that includes wherein a second individual channel has no nozzle. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 8 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejecting head that includes the second channel group is separated from the contact point area farther than the first channel group, and a number of the second individual channel included in the first channel group is greater than a number of the second individual channel included in the second channel group. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, 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, Douglas 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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853