CTFR 18/636,412 CTFR 81217 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Tomimatsu does not disclose a transfer member according to the newly incorporated feature of claim 1, which requires a transfer member that “surrounds the nozzle plate leaving a surrounding opening constituting an air gap between the transfer member and the nozzle plate, such that heat transfer from the transfer member to the nozzle plate occurs through an entire circumference of the surrounding opening.” Applicant contends that Tomimatsu does not disclose this feature because Tomimatsu’s heat transfer “appears to be done by heating only one side of the nozzle plate 74” (page 6 of remarks). However, this argument fails to rely on any factual evidence presented by Tomimatsu. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tomimatsu discloses a heat transfer configuration that includes spacer 181, head cover 23, and fixing plate 29. In particular the fixing plate 29 is clearly disclosed as surrounding the nozzle plate in the manner claimed, and transfers heat from a plurality of heaters 185, 186 so as to provide heat transfer through an entire circumference of a surrounding opening (paragraphs 62, 69 & Figs. 4, 7, 11-12). Please note that, much like Applicant’s own invention, Tomimatsu’s heat transfer members are formed of high thermally conductive metals. Therefore, any heat conducted through the metallic e.g. fixing plate is naturally spread throughout the fixing plate structure. Therefore, insofar as Applicant’s heat transfer performs heating through an entire circumference of the surrounding opening, so does Tomimatsu. It is not clear how Applicant arrived at the contention that Tomimatsu’s heating occurs at only one side of the nozzle plate 74. In view of the above, Examiner has found no reason to withdraw the previously applied prior art rejection(s) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5, 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 spacer 181, head cover 23, fixing plate 29) configured to transfer heat generated by the heat source to the head (Figs. 4, 11-12), wherein the transfer member surrounds the nozzle plate leaving a surrounding opening constituting an air gap between the transfer member and the nozzle plate (Figs. 4, 7), such that heat transfer from the transfer member to the nozzle plate occurs through an entire circumference of the surrounding opening (paragraphs 62, 69 & Figs. 4, 7, 11-12). Regarding claim 2: Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the transfer member surrounds the nozzle plate and the main body portion (at least via head cover 23: Figs. 11-12). Regarding claim 3: Tomimatsu et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and also that the transfer member 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: 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. 4, 7) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/636,412 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/636,412 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/636,412 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/636,412 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/636,412 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/636,412 Page 7 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/636,412 Page 8 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights