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Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/15/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/4/2026, 8/28/2025, 8/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Luginbuhl et al. (US 6523762 B1).
Regarding claim 1:
Luginbuhl discloses a laminated substrate comprising:
a silicon substrate (1); and
a silicon compound film (any of 2, 3, or 12) stacked on the silicon substrate (Fig. 1),
wherein the silicon compound film has a through hole (Fig. 1),
wherein the silicon substrate has a hole (Fig. 1) communicating with the through hole (Fig. 1), and wherein either a diameter of the hole is smaller at least at a portion in a depth direction of the hold than a diameter of the through hole on a surface in contact with the silicon substrate, or a cross sectional area of the hole is smaller at least at a portion in a depth direction of the hole than a cross sectional area of the through hole on a surface in contact with the silicon substrate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2:
Luginbuhl discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the hole is a through hole penetrating the silicon substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3:
Luginbuhl discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the silicon compound film contains one or more of SiO, SiO2, Si3N4, SiN, SiC, SiON, SiOC, SiCN, and SiOCN (col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4:
Luginbuhl discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the silicon compound film is a silicon oxide film (col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5:
Luginbuhl discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the diameter of the hole is smaller over an entire area in the depth direction of the hole than the diameter of the through hole on the surface in contact with the silicon substrate (at least when the silicon substrate “hole” is the hole corresponding to nozzle 22: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6:
Luginbuhl discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the diameter of the hole is smaller at a portion in the depth direction of the hole than the diameter of the through hole on the surface in contact with the silicon substrate (at least when the silicon substrate “hole” is the hole corresponding to the entire depth of the silicon substrate: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7:
Luginbuhl discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that a cross-sectional area of the hole is smaller at least at a portion in a depth direction of the hole than a cross-sectional area of the through hole on a surface in contact with the silicon substrate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8:
Luginbuhl discloses a liquid discharge head comprising:
a silicon substrate (1); and
a silicon compound film (any of 2, 3, or 12) stacked on the silicon substrate (Fig. 1),
wherein the silicon compound film has a through hole (Fig. 1),
wherein the silicon substrate has a hole (Fig. 1) communicating with the through hole (Fig. 1), and wherein either a diameter of the hole is smaller at least at a portion in a depth direction of the hold than a diameter of the through hole on a surface in contact with the silicon substrate, or a cross sectional area of the hole is smaller at least at a portion in a depth direction of the hole than a cross sectional area of the through hole on a surface in contact with the silicon substrate (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
The following prior art reference (not exhaustive) represent known relative laminated substrates:
US 2013/0244352 A1 disclose a silicon substrate (13) having a hole (12) and a silicon compound film (51) having a through hole (83);
US 2020/0122465 A1 disclose a silicon substrate (1) having a hole (13) and a silicon compound film (15) having a through hole (12);
US 2019/0270307 A1 disclose a silicon substrate (25/21) having a hole (47/26) and a silicon compound film (30) having a through hole (71/26); and
US 2020/0215819 A1 disclose a silicon substrate (51) having a hole (512) and a silicon compound film (52,53) having a through hole (Fig. 8).
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