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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 July 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “an liquid” should be replaced by -- a liquid --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aoki et al. (US 2023/0066192 – hereinafter Aoki.)
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 inclined portions each 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.]
Regarding claim 2,
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,
Aoki further discloses wherein the pressure chamber extends in a first direction intersecting the normal direction, and the inclined portions are provided at both ends of the pressure chamber in the first direction [as seen in figs. 2-3B.]
Regarding claim 6,
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 7,
Aoki further discloses wherein the diaphragm has a recess portion that is provided at a portion bonded to the pressure chamber substrate and is recessed in a first direction intersecting the normal direction, and the inclined portion overlaps the recess portion in plan view of the diaphragm [as seen in figs. 2-3B.]
Regarding claim 9,
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,
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.]
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.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki.
Regarding claim 3,
Aoki 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], 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 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.
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