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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 11 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The claims as originally filed recited “ wherein the pressure chamber substrate is bonded to the flow path forming substrate with an adhesive and has inclined portions each having one or more inclined surfaces” (emphasis added) but claim 11 recites “wherein the pressure chamber substrate is bonded to the flow path forming substrate with an adhesive and has an inclined portion having a first inclined surface and a second inclined surface provided closer to the diaphragm” (emphasis added), and if these claims had been included in the original claims, the Examiner would have done a Restriction Requirement since one claim recites a plurality of portions and the other recites a single inclined portion. Also note that newly added claim 11 includes limitations found in claim 4, which was indicated as having allowable subject matter in the Office Action mailed on 23 January 2026, but claim 4 includes limitations from claims 1-3 and those of claims 2-3 were not included the new claim, changing the scope of the invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in Aoki et al. (US 2023/0066192 – hereinafter Aoki) in view of Mikoshiba et al. (US 2020/0331267 – hereinafter Mikoshiba.)
Regarding claim 1,
Aoki discloses a liquid ejecting head [3 in figs. 1-2] comprising:
a pressure chamber substrate [20 in figs. 2-3A] forming a pressure chamber [19 in figs. 2-3B] in which an liquid is stored [paragraph 0021];
a flow path forming substrate [14 in fig. 2] forming a flow path through which the liquid flows [paragraph 0021];
a pressure portion [13 in fig. 2, including piezoelectric element 22 in figs. 2-3B] applying a pressure to the liquid in the pressure chamber [paragraphs 0021-0024]; and
a diaphragm [21 in figs. 2-3B, including vibrating portion 37 in figs. 2-3B] bonded to the pressure portion and vibrating with displacement of the pressure portion [paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0034],
wherein the pressure chamber substrate is bonded to the flow path forming substrate with an adhesive [paragraphs 0023 and 0028; as seen in figs. 4A-4B] and has an inclined portion having one or more inclined surfaces [33 in fig. 3A] that are inclined with respect to a normal direction of a surface of the diaphragm in such a way that a width of the pressure chamber decreases toward the diaphragm [as seen in figs. 2-3A; paragraphs 0025-0027.]
Aoki fails to expressly disclose wherein
the diaphragm has a recessed portion on a side facing the pressure chamber substrate, the recessed portion having a recess portion at a portion bonded to the pressure chamber substrate, the recess portion being recessed in a first direction intersecting the normal direction, and
the inclined portion overlaps the recess portion in plan view of the diaphragm.
However, Mikoshiba discloses a liquid ejecting head comprising:
a pressure chamber substrate [34 in fig. 3 / 342 in fig. 8] forming a pressure chamber [C in fig. 3] in which a liquid is stored [paragraph 0026];
a flow path forming substrate [32 in fig. 3] forming a flow path through which the liquid flows [paragraph 0023-0025];
a pressure portion [44 in figs. 3 and 8] applying a pressure to the liquid in the pressure chamber [paragraph 0029]; and
a diaphragm [36 in fig. 3 / 36A (including layers 361-362) in fig. 8] bonded to the pressure portion and vibrating with displacement of the pressure portion [paragraph0028],
wherein the pressure chamber substrate is bonded to the flow path forming substrate with an adhesive [paragraph 0022],
the diaphragm has a recessed portion [363 in fig. 8] on a side facing the pressure chamber substrate, the recessed portion having a recess portion at a portion bonded to the pressure chamber substrate, the recess portion being recessed in a first direction intersecting the normal direction [as seen in fig. 8; paragraph 0066], and
a portion of the pressure chamber overlaps the recess portion in plan view of the diaphragm [as seen in fig. 8; please note that the border of the recessed portion overlaps wall portion 342 of the pressure chamber substrate.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diaphragm in the Aoki invention to include a recessed portion on a side facing the pressure chamber substrate so that the border of the recessed portion overlaps said pressure chamber substrate (and therefore its inclined portion) as taught by Mikoshiba for the purpose of reducing “the occurrence of cracking and the like caused by concentration of stress when the diaphragm 36 is flexed and deformed” [paragraph 0066.]
Regarding claim 2,
In the obvious combination, Aoki further discloses wherein an inclination angle of the one or more inclined surfaces with respect to the normal direction is larger than 0 degrees and equal to or smaller than 45 degrees [as seen in fig. 3A.]
Regarding claim 5,
In the obvious combination, Aoki further discloses wherein the pressure chamber extends in a first direction intersecting the normal direction, and has inclined portions are provided at both ends of the pressure chamber in the first direction [as seen in figs. 2-3B.]
Regarding claim 6,
In the obvious combination, Aoki further discloses wherein the inclined portion is provided at a portion of the pressure chamber substrate that is bonded to the diaphragm [as seen in figs. 2-3A.]
Regarding claim 9,
In the obvious combination, Aoki further discloses wherein
the inclined portion overlaps the pressure portion in plan view of the diaphragm [as seen in figs. 2-3A.]
Regarding claim 10,
In the obvious combination, Aoki further discloses an image forming apparatus [1 in fig. 1] comprising:
a liquid ejecting head that ejects a liquid 3 in figs. 1-2],
wherein the liquid ejecting head is the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1 [see Rejection above; as applied to the Aoki/Mikoshiba invention.]
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki as modified by Mikoshiba.
Regarding claim 3,
Aoki as modified by Mikoshiba discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above and further teaches wherein the one or more inclined surfaces are a plurality of inclined surfaces [as seen in figs. 2-3A of Aoki], but fails to expressly disclose wherein the plurality of inclined surfaces have different inclination angles from each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inclined surfaces have different inclination angles, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One would have been motivated to optimize the inclination angles for the purpose of enhancing fluid flow and dynamics of the liquid flowing toward the nozzle ad enhancing ejection consistency.
Regarding claim 8,
Aoki as modified by Mikoshiba discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the recess portion overlaps the inclined portion in a range of 50 nm or more and 1000 nm or less in plan view of the diaphragm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the overlap between the recess portion and the inclined portion be in a range of 50 nm or more and 1000 nm or less in plan view of the diaphragm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize the amount of overlap in order to not interrupt the flow of ink being fed in the pressure chamber, preventing a negative impact on ejection efficiency and consistency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claims 1-3, the liquid ejecting head further comprising wherein
the one or more inclined surfaces include a first inclined surface and a second inclined surface provided closer to the diaphragm than the first inclined surface in the normal direction, and
a second inclination angle is larger than a first inclination angle, the second inclination angle being an inclination angle of the second inclined surface with respect to the normal direction, and the first inclination angle being an inclination angle of the first inclined surface with respect to the normal direction.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Conclusion
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 JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 X 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights