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
Claims 6, 8-9, and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II and/or Species B-D, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/6/2026.
Examiner notes that Applicant has also withdrawn claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has found no reason to withdraw the previously applied prior art rejection(s).
Applicant contends that “connecting the dummy terminals 24 to the substrate terminals 21, as in Harada, would electrically connect the dummy terminals 24 to the substrate terminals 21, which is contrary to the teaching of Hayakawa which provides that the dummy terminals are not used for transmission and reception of electrical signals” (page 7 of remarks). While Examiner appreciates that Hayakawa’s dummy terminals 24 are not used for transmission and reception of electrical signals, the Office Action did not propose a process of connecting the existing dummy terminals 24 to the substrate terminals 21 in the manner argued. Rather, the Office Action indicated that it would have been obvious to:
“utilize the additional portion pattern disclosed by Harada et al. in place of Hayakawa et al.’s, to achieve the predictable result of preventing peeling of the anisotropic conductive film” (see page 4 of the Non-Final Office Action).
In other words, since both Hayataka and Harada are concerned with ACF peeling, it would have been obvious to replace Hayakawa’s dummy terminals 24 with the dummy lead pattern 19 taught by Harada et al, which are in contact with the end leads as required by the claims.
Applicant also argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Hayakawa with Harada’s teachings because “Hayakawa already discloses a predictable means to prevent peeling of the film” (page 7 of remarks). However, such an argument ignores both the applied rejection rationale and the obviousness rationales exemplified in the KSR findings, which includes “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (see MPEP 2141). In this case, the Office Action proposed a simple substitution of Harada’s dummy lead pattern 19 for Hayataka’s dummy terminals 24, since both are utilized for the same purpose of preventing ACF peeling, and since such a substitution would have produced the desired and predictable result of preventing ACF peeling in Hayataka’s liquid ejection head.
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) 1-5, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (US 2017/0144438 A1) in view of Harada et al. (JP H07161771A).
Regarding claim 1:
Hayakawa et al. disclose a liquid ejection head having an electrical connection structure, the electrical connection structure comprising:
a plurality of first leads (terminals 21) having a raised shape (Fig. 12-13) and arranged in one direction (Figs. 3-4) along an edge portion of a first electrical wiring member (of relay substrate 12: Fig. 3);
a plurality of second leads (mating terminals 56) arranged in the one direction along an edge portion of a second electrical wiring member (of flexible substrate 30: Fig. 2, 4), the second leads facing the corresponding first leads (Figs. 4, 12-13); and
an anisotropic conductive film (ACF 9) located between the plurality of first leads and the plurality of second leads (Figs. 12-13), the anisotropic conductive film electrically connecting the plurality of first leads and the corresponding plurality of second leads to each other (paragraphs 61-62 & Figs. 12-13),
wherein the plurality of first leads includes a first end lead (e.g. left-most terminal 21 in Fig. 4) located at one end portion in the one direction (Fig. 4), and
wherein the first electrical wiring member includes a first additional portion (left side dummy terminal 24: Fig. 4) having a raised shape (Figs. 12-13).
Hayakawa et al. do not expressly disclose that at least a portion of the first additional portion being in contact with the first end lead in the one direction.
However, Harada et al. disclose an electrical connection structure having a plurality of first leads (outer leads 13b), including a first end lead (e.g. the left-most outer lead 13b shown in Figs. 4-5), and an anisotropic conductive film (conductive film 7), wherein an additional portion (left-side dummy leads 19) having a raised shape is in contact with the first end lead in one direction (Figs. 4-5).
Because both Hayakawa et al. and Harada et al. disclose additional portions that serve to prevent peeling of the anisotropic conductive film, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of invention, to utilize the additional portion pattern disclosed by Harada et al. in place of Hayakawa et al.’s, to achieve the predictable result of preventing peeling of the anisotropic conductive film.
Regarding claim 2:
Hayakawa et al.’s modified liquid ejection head comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Hayakawa et al. also disclose that a thickness of the first additional portion is not less than 80% and not more than 120% of a thickness of the first end lead (Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 3:
Hayakawa et al.’s modified liquid ejection head comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Hayakawa et al. also disclose that the first additional portion and the plurality of first leads are made of the same material (paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 4:
Hayakawa et al.’s modified liquid ejection head comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Harada et al. also disclose that the first additional portion includes a plurality of first branch portions in contact with the first end lead (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 5:
Hayakawa et al.’s modified liquid ejection head comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Harada et al. also disclose that the first plurality of branch portions extends substantially parallel to the one direction (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 7:
Hayakawa et al.’s modified liquid ejection head comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Harada et al. also disclose that the first branch portions are substantially rectangular as viewed in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the first electrical wiring member on which the plurality of first leads is arranged (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 10:
Hayakawa et al.’s modified liquid ejection head comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Hayawaka et al. also disclose that the plurality of leads includes a second end lead (right-most terminal 21 in Fig. 4) located at an end portion on a side opposite to the first end lead (Fig. 4), wherein the first electrical wiring member includes a second additional portion (right side dummy terminal 24: Fig. 4) having a raised shape (Figs. 12-13).
Harada et al. also disclose a second end lead (right-most outer lead 13b in Figs. 4-5) and a second additional portion (right-side dummy leads 19) having a raised shape and in contact with the second end lead in the one direction (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 11:
Hayakawa et al.’s modified liquid ejection head comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Harada et al. also disclose that the first electrical wiring member is a printed circuit board (relay substrate 12), and the second electrical wiring member is a flexible wiring board (flexible substrate 30: Fig. 2).
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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights