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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yonemoto et al. (2022/0379606) (hereinafter Yonemoto et al.).
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Yonemoto et al. teaches a liquid ejection head (see Figs. 2A-2B) [Paragraph 0035] comprising: a joined substrate (130, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C) of a first substrate (131, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C) and a second substrate (132, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C) [Paragraphs 0034-0038], the first substrate (131) and the second substrate (132) being layered and joined with an adhesive (123, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C) [Paragraph 0034-0039], wherein the joined substrate (130) is configured to have a liquid channel (115a, 115b, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C), with which the first substrate (131) and the second substrate (132) communicate on a joining position (134, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C ) of the first substrate (131) and the second substrate (132) [Paragraph 0034], the adhesive (123) is disposed at a corner part (see Figs. 4A-4C) so as to form an arcuate shape convex toward the corner part (see Figs. 4A-4C) on a cross section thereof [Paragraphs 0034 and 0039, see also Figs. 4A-4C], the corner part (see Figs. 4A-4C) being formed at a position corresponding to the liquid channel (115a, 115b), the corner part (see Figs. 4A-4C) being formed by an end face of the first substrate (131), and a plane of the second substrate (132) [see Figs. 4A-4C], and on the joining position (134), a protective film (125, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C) is provided so as to be continuous from the first substrate (131) via the adhesive (123) disposed on the corner part to the second substrate (132) [Paragraphs 0034, 0040, 0072-0073].
Regarding Claim 2, Yonemoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Figs. 2A-2B), wherein the adhesive (123) disposed on the corner part (see Figs. 4A-4C) is spread of the adhesive (123) applied to joining faces when the first substrate (131) and the second substrate (132) are joined [Paragraphs 0079-0086].
Regarding Claim 4, Yonemoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Figs. 2a-2B), wherein at least one of the first substrate (131) and the second substrate (132) is provided with a groove (see Figs. 4A-4C) configured to store the adhesive (123) [see Figs. 4A-4C].
Regarding Claim 5, Yonemoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Figs. 2A-2B), wherein the groove (see Figs. 4A-4C) is provided for controlling an amount of the spread of the adhesive (123) at the corner part (see Figs. 4A-4C) [See Figs. 4A-4C].
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonemoto et al. (2022/0379606).
Regarding Claim 7, Yonemoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Figs. 2A-2C) [Paragraphs 0034-0040, 0072-0086].
Yonemoto et al. further teaches a protective film (125, Figs. 2A-2B, 3A-3H, and 4A-4C) [Paragraphs 0034, 0040, 0072-0073].
Yonemoto et al. fails to teach wherein the protective film has a film thickness of at least 80 nm and not more than 180 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the protective film with a film thickness of at least 80 nm and not more than 180 nm, 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, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to combine the holdings of In re Aller with the teachings of Yonemoto et al. is for the purposes of suppressing damage to the adhesive film [Paragraph 0073].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are 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: The primary reason for the allowance of claims 3 and 6 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection head that includes wherein when a first and second substrate are in a layering direction, and a direction which crosses the layering direction, and where the first substrate and the plane of the second substrate are in an extending direction, on a cross section at a corner part, the spread of the adhesive is on a side closer to the corner part than a line connecting a position furthest from the corner part in the spread in the layering direction, and a position furthest from the corner part in the spread in the extending direction. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, 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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853