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 without traverse of Species C, claims 1-7 and 9 in the reply filed on 18 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 8 and 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 December 2025.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10 May 2024, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 10 May 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, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (11,034,149).
With respect to claim 1, Nishimura discloses a liquid discharge head comprising:
a nozzle plate (Fig. 2, i.e. outside plate of element 232) having multiple nozzles (Fig. 3, array of element 314) from each of which a liquid is dischargeable (Column 6, lines 14-19), the multiple nozzles arrayed in a nozzle array direction (Fig. 3 and Fig. 6, i.e. left/ right direction);
a channel plate (Fig. 2, element 232) having:
multiple pressure chambers (Fig. 3, array of element 312) arrayed in the nozzle array direction in a pressure chamber area (Fig. 6, element 300), the multiple pressure chambers respectively communicating with the multiple nozzles (Column 6, lines 17-19); and
a common channel substrate (Fig. 2, element 230) having:
a common supply channel (Fig. 4, element 418) communicating with each of the multiple pressure chambers (Fig. 4, element 312);
a common collection channel (Fig. 4, element 422) communicating with each of the multiple pressure chambers (Fig. 4, element 312); and
a communication channel (Fig. 6, element 610):
disposed outside the pressure chamber area (Fig. 6, element 300) in the nozzle array direction (Fig. 6, i.e. left/right direction);
connecting the common supply channel (Fig. 6, element 418) and the common collection channel (Fig. 6, element 422) outside the pressure chamber area (Fig. 6, element 300); and
bypassing (Fig. 6, i.e. element 610 is outside element 300) the multiple pressure chambers (Column 7, lines 22-29).
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning the communication channel are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Nishimura as applied above.
With respect to claim 2, Nishimura discloses a first supply channel (Fig. 6, i.e. portion above element 211) including the common supply channel (Fig. 6, element 418), the multiple pressure chambers (Fig. 3, array of element 312), and the common collection channel (Fig. 6, element 422) to supply the liquid from the common supply channel to the common collection channel through the multiple pressure chambers (Column 6, line 60 – Column 7, line 16); and a second supply channel (Fig. 6, i.e. portion below element 211) including the common supply channel (Fig. 6, element 418), the communication channel (Fig. 6, element 610), and the common collection channel (Fig. 6, element 422) to supply the liquid from the common supply channel to the common collection channel through the communication channel (Column 6, line 60 – Column 7, line 16).
With respect to claim 6, Nishimura discloses a part of the common collection channel (Fig. 2, i.e. top most portion of element 212) is disposed above the common supply channel (Fig. 4, element 418).
With respect to claim 7, Nishimura discloses another part of the common collection channel (Fig. 2, i.e. bottom most portion of element 212 connected to element 422) includes a channel portion disposed at the same height as the common supply channel (Fig. 4, element 418) and closer to the multiple nozzles (Fig. 4, element 314) than the common supply channel (Fig. 4, element 418).
With respect to claim 9, Nishimura discloses a part of the common supply channel (Fig. 4, element 418) is disposed above the common collection channel (Fig. 4, element 422).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 3 is 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 primary reasons for allowance for claim 3 is that applicant’s claimed invention includes a liquid discharge head having a common supply channel, a common collection channel, and a communication channel, where the common supply channel includes an inlet channel disposed outside the pressure chamber area on a first side of the pressure chamber area in the nozzle array direction, and a supply channel end disposed outside the pressure chamber area on a second side of the pressure chamber area opposite the first side in the nozzle array direction, the common collection channel includes a drain channel disposed outside the pressure chamber area on the second side of the pressure chamber area in the nozzle array direction, and a collection channel end disposed outside the pressure chamber area on the first side of the pressure chamber area in the nozzle array direction, and the communication channel connects at least one of the inlet channel and the collection channel end, or the supply channel end and the drain channel. It is this limitation, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
2. Claims 4 and 5 are objected to for being dependent upon claim 3.
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 01/14/2026