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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant contends that Tomimatsu et al.’s fixing plate 29 having an opening 292 does not constitute the claimed “transfer member surrounding the nozzle plate and defining a surrounding opening constituting an air gap between the transfer member and the nozzle plate, the surrounding opening continuing along a side of at least a portion of the main body portion adjacent the nozzle plate” because the opening 292 does not continue “along a side of at least a portion of the main body portion adjacent the nozzle plate” (page 6 of remarks). Regardless of whether the opening 292 continues in the manner claimed, the Office Action clearly pointed to a combination of elements that may constitute the claimed “transfer member.”
Applicant also contends that Tomimatsu et al.’s holder cover 23, which forms space S3, does not constitute the claimed “transfer member surrounding the nozzle plate and defining a surrounding opening constituting an air gap between the transfer member and the nozzle plate, the surrounding opening continuing along a side of at least a portion of the main body portion adjacent the nozzle plate,” seemingly because “opening 292 in fixing plate 29 and space S3 of holder cover 23 are therefore separately identified structures, with head chip 70 being fixed to fixing plate 29” (page 7 of remarks). However, it is not clear how such logic precludes the space S3 from constituting the claimed “surrounding opening constituting an air gap.” In fact, Tomimatsu et al.’s holder cover 23 acts as a heat transfer member (Figs. 11-12) and includes an opening that surrounds the head chips and respective nozzle plates in the form an space S3 (Fig. 5), the space S3 continuing along a side of at least a portion of the main body portion adjacent the nozzle plate (Fig. 5-6, 11-12).
In light of the above, Examiner has found no reason to withdraw the previously applied prior art rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3-4:
These claims fail to particularly point out or distinctly claim the subject matter of invention, at least because they depend from cancelled claim 2.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Uezawa (US 2012/0069097 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not constitute an indication of allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
Uezawa disclose a liquid ejection apparatus comprising:
a head (recording head 16) configured to eject a liquid (paragraph 45), the head comprising a nozzle plate (47) having a nozzle surface where a nozzle (38) configured to eject the liquid opens (Fig. 2), and a main body portion (at least flow path formation substrate 48) to which the nozzle plate is attached (Fig. 2) and which includes a supply flow path (29, 37) in communication with the nozzle (Fig. 2);
a heat source (heater 17); and
a transfer member (at least head cover 20) configured to transfer heat generated by the heat source to the head (paragraph 47 & Fig. 2),
wherein the transfer member surrounding the nozzle plate (paragraph 47 & Figs. 2, 4) and defining a surrounding opening constituting an air gap between the transfer member and the nozzle plate (shown in Fig. 2), the surrounding opening continuing along a side of at least a portion of the main body portion adjacent the nozzle plate (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Tomimatsu et al. (US 2022/0305827 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Tomimatsu et al. disclose a liquid ejection apparatus comprising:
a head (liquid ejecting head 20) configured to eject a liquid (paragraph 21), the head comprising a nozzle plate (74) having a nozzle surface where a nozzle (N) configured to eject the liquid opens (Figs. 4, 7), and a main body portion (at least substrates 71, 77) to which the nozzle plate is attached (Fig. 4) and which includes a supply flow path (714) in communication with the nozzle (Fig. 4);
a heat source (at least one of heaters 185, 186); and
a transfer member (at least head cover 23) configured to transfer heat generated by the heat source to the head (Figs. 4, 11-12),
wherein the transfer member surrounding the nozzle plate (Figs. 5-7) and defining a surrounding opening constituting an air gap (of space S3) between the transfer member and the nozzle plate (Figs. 6-7, 11-12), the surrounding opening continuing along a side of at least a portion of the main body portion adjacent the nozzle plate (Figs. 5-6, 11-12).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood):
Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the transfer member (head cover 23 + fixing plate 29) includes:
a first member (fixing plate 29) configured to surround the nozzle plate (Figs. 4, 7); and
a second member (head cover 23) configured to surround the main body portion (Figs. 5, 11-12),
wherein the heat source is attached to the second member (Figs. 11-12), and
wherein the first member is in contact with the second member (Figs. 5, 11-12).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood):
Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and also that the first member is not in contact with the head (fixing plate 29 is not in contact with either the nozzle plate or main body portion: Fig. 4), and the second member is also not in contact with the head (Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 5:
Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the apparatus further comprises:
a carriage (18) on which the head is mounted (Fig. 1), wherein the heat source is attached to the carriage (Figs. 8, 10).
Regarding claims 8-9:
Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claims 1/5, and also that the transfer member holds the head (Fig. 5, 11-12).
Regarding claim 10:
Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and also that the surrounding opening has substantially uniform thickness between the transfer member and the nozzle plate for the entire circumference of the surrounding opening (Figs. 5-6).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomimatsu (US 2022/0305827 A1) in view of Kamiyama (US 2008/0174627 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a detection unit configured to detect a temperature of a liquid.
However, Kamiyama discloses a liquid ejection apparatus that is able to warm up a head according to a detected temperature (paragraph 223) by including a detection unit (temperature sensor 91) configured to detect a temperature of a liquid (paragraph 206), wherein the detection unit is attached to the nozzle plate (Fig. 12) and detects a temperature of a liquid located in the nozzle (paragraph 206).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a detection unit, such as that taught by Kamiyama, into Tomimatsu et al.’s apparatus.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomimatsu (US 2022/0305827 A1) in view of Hagiwara et al. (US 2014/0240386 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a detection unit configured to detect a temperature of a liquid.
However, Hagiwara et al. disclose a liquid ejection apparatus that is able to suppress erroneous ink discharge (paragraph 12) by including a detection unit (temperature sensor 115) configured to detect a temperature of a liquid (paragraph 40), wherein the detection unit is attached to a main body portion (head main body 21: Fig. 3) and detects a temperature of a liquid located in the supply flow path (paragraph 51 & Fig. 3).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a detection unit, such as that taught by Hagiwara, into Tomimatsu et al.’s apparatus.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights