DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 8, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchadoorian et al. (4,457,797) in view of Okude et al. (10,589,534).
Regarding claim 1, Hatchadoorian teaches a method for manufacturing a pressure adjustment mechanism capable of adjusting a pressure of a liquid, comprising:
preparing a main body (fig. 1, item 9) a depressed portion (fig. 1, item 13), and a film (fig. 3, item 35) having flexibility (compare figs. 4, 5);
welding the film to the main body in such a manner as to cover the depressed portion (compare figs. 3, 4); and
molding the film by moving the film in a direction opposite to the depressed portion while sucking the film in a state where the film is welded to the main body (see fig. 5, Note that air is sucked via channel 7 so that film 35 is molded into depressed portion 13. Note that the depressed portion itself has no direction, and thus to recite a direction “opposite to the depressed portion” has no meaning).
Hatchadoorian does not teach wherein an elastic member is in the depressed portion and a plate member is fixed to the film. Okude teaches this (Okude, see fig. 12C, Note unlabeled main body to which film 232 is welded, the main body having a depressed portion in which elastic member 237 is disposed, and note plate member 231 fixed to the film). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the welding/molding technique disclosed by Hatchadoorian to the device of Okude because doing so would amount to applying a known manufacturing technique to a known manufactured device to obtain predictable results.
Upon combination of the references Okude’s elastic member would be in the depressed portion, and Okude’s plate member would be fixed to the center of the film in contact with the elastic member.
Regarding claim 8, Hatchadoorian in view of Okudea teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the molding, part of the film moves from a weld portion between the film and the main body by 0.9 mm in a direction opposite to the depressed portion (Okude, see fig. 12C, Note that upon applying Hatchadoorian’s technique to the film/main body of Okude, the film would be pulled outward from the depressed portion instead inward, as disclosed by Hatchdoorian. Further, the film would be pulled by at least 0.9 mm).
Regarding claim 11, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the elastic body is a spring configured to bias the depressed portion and the plate member in directions away from each other (Okude, see fig. 12C).
Regarding claim 12, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the pressure adjustment mechanism is disposed in an inkjet printing apparatus to adjust a pressure of an ink to be supplied to a printing head (Okude, see fig. 12C, Note that the adjustment mechanism is a valve supplying liquid to a printhead).
Regarding claim 13, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 12, the main body includes: a valve chamber (Okude, fig. 12C, item 233) molded inside the main body; a supply flow path (Okude, fig. 12C, note inlet and outlet) capable of supplying the liquid to the valve chamber; a connection flow path (Okude, fig. 12C, item 233) connecting the valve chamber and the depressed portion; a valve mechanism (Okude, fig. 12C, item 234-236) disposed in the valve chamber and capable of opening and closing the connection flow path (Okude, fig. 12C); and a discharge flow path (Okude, fig. 12C, oulet) capable of discharging the liquid from the depressed portion.
Regarding claim 16, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the molding, a protruding portion, which protrudes toward a direction opposite a direction in which the depressed portion is depressed, is molded (Hatchadoorian, figs. 3-5, Note protruding portion of film that fits into slot 16 and protrudes away from the depression direction of the depressed portion).
Regarding claim 17, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein in the molding, a weld portion between the film and the plate member is sucked (Okude, fig. 12C, Note that, applying Hatchadoorian’s welding technique to the film and plate member of Okude, both of the film and the plate member would be sucked from inside the depressed portion. Note that “weld portion” has not been defined in any way. Okude’s film and plate member are being interpreted to be joined at “a weld portion”).
Regarding claim 18, see rejections of claims 16 and 17.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchadoorian in view of Okude as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Igarashi et al. (8,647,461).
Regarding claim 2, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1. Hatchadoorian in view of Okude does not teach removing an unnecessary portion in the film after the molding. Igarashi teaches this (Igarashi, see figs. 1-3, Note that only the portion of the welded/molded product in chamber 12 is kept, and the extraneous portions outside the welding surfaces are removed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut off unnecessary portions of a film after welding, as disclosed by Igarashi, in the device disclosed by Hatchadoorian in view of Okude because doing so would amount to disposal of waste.
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchadoorian in view of Okude as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (2013/0260976).
Regarding claim 3, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the film and a rib (Okude, fig. 12C, note unlabeled rib in main body to which film 232 is welded) molded on a peripheral portion of an opening of the depressed portion are heated to be fused with each other (Okude, see fig. 12C).
Hatchadoorian in view Okude does not teach wherein the film includes a weld layer and a base film layer which have different melting points from each other. Schmidt teaches this (Schmidt, [0026], [0029], Note that the weld layer is being taken to be polypropylene, and the base layer is being taken to be polyethylene terephthalate, and thus each has a different melting point). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to use the two-layer structure disclosed by Schmidt for the film disclosed by Hatchadoorian in view of Okude because doing so would facilitate the reliable welding of the film to the main body while also allowing for strengthening of the film with a base layer.
Regarding claim 4, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude and Schmidt teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 3, wherein the rib is molded in a circular ring shape on the peripheral edge of the depressed portion (Okudea, see fig. 12, note ring around depressed portion), the plate member has a circular plate shape (Okude, see fig. 12B), and in the welding and the molding, a center of a ring formed by the rib disposed in a ring shape and a center of the plate member coincide on the same axis (Okude, see fig. 12B).
Regarding claim 5, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude and Schmidt teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 3, wherein, the weld layer contains polypropylene (Schmidt, [0029]). Hatchadoorian in view of Okude and Schmidt does not teach wherein the rib contains polypropylene. Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a plastic such as polypropylene to make the main body of the liquid chamber disclosed by Okude because plastic was a widely use material in inkjet printheads.
Regarding claim 6, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude and Schmidt teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 3, wherein the base film layer is laminated on the weld layer (Schmidt, [0026]), the weld layer includes a cast polypropylene film (Schmidt, [0029]), and the base film layer includes an oriented polyethylene terephthalate film (Schmidt, [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, Hatchadoorian in view of Okude and Schmidt teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 6, wherein the base film layer further contains aluminum or silica deposited on the oriented polyethylene terephthalate film (Schmidt, [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art combination does not teach wherein the molding step requires moving the film/plate “in a direction opposite to the depressed portion.” As clarified above, Examiner’s interpretation is that a depressed portion of the type shown in the present invention and the prior art does not itself have a direction, and thus no direction can be said to be “opposite to the depressed portion.” That is, a physical structure or space has no directionality. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights