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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-18, and Species 3, Figure 17a-17c, in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2024 and 10/14/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 6-7, 10-11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okushima et al. (US 20170197420 A1) in view of Makoto et al. (JP 2014151561 A).
Okushima disclose the following limitations:
Regarding claim 1, a liquid ejection head (“liquid ejection unit 300”, Figure 1) comprising:
an element substrate (“print element board 310”, Figure 37) including a substrate (“substrate 311”, Figure 37) having a first face (Figure 37 displays how the “substrate 311” has a surface facing “ejection opening forming member 312”),
an element (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37) configured to eject a liquid (Paragraph [0252] describes how the “ejecting ink” inside the “pressure chamber 323” is ejected from the “ejection opening 313”.),
a channel forming member (“ejection opening forming member 312”, Figure 37) including a pressure chamber (“pressure chamber 323”, Figure 37) and an ejection port (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37),
the ejection port (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37) being a port communicating with the pressure chamber (“pressure chamber 323”, Figure 37) and through which the liquid is ejected (Paragraph [0252] describes how the “ejecting ink” inside the “pressure chamber 323” is ejected from the “ejection opening 313”.), and
a pad array (“terminals 316”, Figure 35A) including a plurality of pads electrically connected to the element (Paragraph [0251] describes how the “terminals 316” are on the “print element board 310”),
the plurality of pads being arranged along one side of the substrate (Figure 36A displays how the “terminals 316” are arranged along one side of the “substrate 311”),
the element (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37), the channel forming member (“ejection opening forming member 312”, Figure 37), and the pad array (“terminals 316”, Figure 37) being disposed at the first face of the substrate (Figure 37 displays how the “ejection opening 313”, “ejection opening forming member 312”, and “terminals 316” are disposed on the “substrate 311”.);
an electric wiring board (“flexible circuit board 40”, Figure 35B) connected to each of the plurality of pads via an electric connection part (Paragraph [0251] describes how the “terminals 316” on the “print element board 310” and the “terminal 341” of the “flexible circuit board 40” are “electrically connected to each other by wire bonding”); and
a sealant (“sealing member 110”, Figure 35A) disposed on the first face of the substrate and surrounding the electric connection part (Paragraph [0251] describes how the “sealing member 110” seals the “electrical connection portion”)
Regarding claim 6, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 1, wherein the electric connection part is a wire (Paragraph [0252] describes how the electrical connection uses an electric wire.).
Regarding claim 10, a liquid ejection head (“liquid ejection unit 300”, Figure 1) comprising:
an element substrate (“print element board 310”, Figure 37) including a substrate (“substrate 311”, Figure 37) having a first face (Figure 37 displays how the “substrate 311” has a surface facing “ejection opening forming member 312”),
an element (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37) configured to eject a liquid (Paragraph [0252] describes how the “ejecting ink” inside the “pressure chamber 323” is ejected from the “ejection opening 313”.),
a channel forming member (“ejection opening forming member 312”, Figure 37) including a pressure chamber (“pressure chamber 323”, Figure 37) and an ejection port (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37),
the ejection port (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37) being a port communicating with the pressure chamber (“pressure chamber 323”, Figure 37) and through which the liquid is ejected (Paragraph [0252] describes how the “ejecting ink” inside the “pressure chamber 323” is ejected from the “ejection opening 313”.), and
a pad array (“terminals 316”, Figure 35A) including a plurality of pads electrically connected to the element (Paragraph [0251] describes how the “terminals 316” are on the “print element board 310”),
the plurality of pads being arranged along one side of the substrate (Figure 36A displays how the “terminals 316” are arranged along one side of the “substrate 311”),
the element (“ejection opening 313”, Figure 37), the channel forming member (“ejection opening forming member 312”, Figure 37), and the pad array (“terminals 316”, Figure 37) being disposed at the first face of the substrate (Figure 37 displays how the “ejection opening 313”, “ejection opening forming member 312”, and “terminals 316” are disposed on the “substrate 311”.);
an electric wiring board (“flexible circuit board 40”, Figure 35B) connected to each of the plurality of pads via an electric connection part (Paragraph [0251] describes how the “terminals 316” on the “print element board 310” and the “terminal 341” of the “flexible circuit board 40” are “electrically connected to each other by wire bonding”); and
a sealant disposed (“sealing member 110”, Figure 35A) on the first face of the substrate and surrounding the electric connection part (Paragraph [0251] describes how the “sealing member 110” seals the “electrical connection portion”)
Okushima fails to disclose the following limitations:
Regarding claim 1, wherein, in plan view of the element substrate, the channel forming member has an opening, and the pad array is located within the opening
Regarding claim 7, wherein the channel forming member is made of resin.
Regarding claim 10, wherein when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, the liquid ejection head comprises a structure disposed between the one side and the pad array the structure and the channel forming member being made of a same material.
Regarding claim 11, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 10, wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, the structure has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers).
Regarding claim 16, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 10, wherein the channel forming member is made of resin.
Regarding claim 18, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 11, wherein the first layer includes polyethylene glycol.
Makoto teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 1, wherein, in plan view of the element substrate, the channel forming member (“orifice plate 3”, Figure 3) has an opening (Figure 3 displays how the “orifice plate 3” stops to allow an opening of the “support substrate 1”), and the pad array is located within the opening (Figure 3 displays how the “Au bonding pad 6” is found within the gap between the “orifice plate 3” and the “edge 21”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein, in plan view of the element substrate, the channel forming member has an opening, and the pad array is located within the opening taught by Makoto. This would have been done for the for the purpose of allowing the electric wiring substrate of the pad to the recording element substrate (Makoto, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 7, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 1, wherein the channel forming member (“orifice plate 3”, Figure 3) is made of resin (Paragraph [0024] describes how the “insulating projection 5” and the “orifice plate 3” are formed from an identical insulating material. Paragraph [0017] further discloses that the “insulating projection 5” is made of resin. Therefore, the “orifice plate 3 is made of resin.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein the channel forming member is made of resin taught by Makoto. This would have been done for the for the purpose of having an advantage in terms of cost and manufacturing tact (Makoto, paragraph [0024]) that is of an insulating material (Makoto, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 10, wherein when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, the liquid ejection head comprises a structure (“insulation protrusion 5”, Figure 3) disposed between the one side and the pad array (Figure 3 displays the “insulation protrusion 5” disposed between the “edge 21” and the “Au bonding pad 6”.), the structure and the channel forming member being made of a same material (Paragraph [0024] describes how the “insulating projection 5” and the “orifice plate 3” are formed from an identical insulating material.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, the liquid ejection head comprises a structure disposed between the one side and the pad array, the structure and the channel forming member being made of a same material taught by Makoto. This would have been done for the for the purpose of having an advantage in terms of cost and manufacturing tact (Makoto, paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 10, wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, the structure has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers).
Modified Okushima discloses the claimed invention except for the structure has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the structure has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers), 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.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize wherein, in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, the structure has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers), into Okushima for the purpose of cost and manufacturing tact (Makoto, paragraph [0024])
Regarding claim 16, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 10, wherein the channel forming member is made of resin (Paragraph [0024] describes how the “insulating projection 5” and the “orifice plate 3” are formed from an identical insulating material. Paragraph [0017] further discloses that the “insulating projection 5” is made of resin. Therefore, the “orifice plate 3 is made of resin.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein the channel forming member is made of resin taught by Makoto. This would have been done for the for the purpose of having an advantage in terms of cost and manufacturing tact (Makoto, paragraph [0024]) that is of an insulating material (Makoto, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 18, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 11, wherein the first layer includes polyethylene glycol.
Modified Okushima discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first layer includes polyethylene glycol. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize polyethylene glycol, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use for the purpose of having an advantage in terms of cost and manufacturing tact (Makoto, paragraph [0024]) that is of an insulating material (Makoto, paragraph [0017]). In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okushima et al. (US 20170197420 A1) in view of Makoto et al. (JP 2014151561 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (US 20030081091 A1)
Okushima discloses the following limitations:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the channel forming member (“ejection opening forming member 312”, Figure 37).
Regarding claim 3, wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Paragraph [0118] describes how the invention includes a “direction intersecting (orthogonal)” to the “liquid ejection substrate”.)
Regarding claim 5, wherein, in a direction that is parallel to the first face, and that is orthogonal to a direction in which the pad array extends (Figure 37 displays an ink liquid flow path “arrow C”, described in paragraph [0254], that flows through the “pressure chamber 323” in a direction parallel to the surface of the “substrate 311” that contacts the “ejection opening forming member 312” and is perpendicular to direction the array of “terminals 316”.)
Okushima fails to teach the following limitations:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the channel forming member includes: a first layer disposed on a side of the first face and defining the pressure chamber; and a second layer disposed on a side of the first layer opposite from the substrate, the second layer having the ejection port, and wherein the opening is disposed in the first layer.
Regarding claim 3, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein, the first layer has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers)
Regarding claim 5, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein, the first layer and the pad array have a distance from each other of greater than or equal to 2 µm and less than or equal to 200 µm (micrometers).
Regarding claim 8, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein the first layer is disposed in contact with the first face of the substrate.
Regarding claim 9, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein the first layer includes polyethylene glycol.
Makoto teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the opening is disposed in the first layer (Figure 3 displays how the entire “orifice plate 3” stops to allow an opening of the “support substrate 1”, which would also include the first layer of the claimed limitation.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply wherein the opening is disposed in the first layer taught by Makoto. This would have been done for the for the purpose of allowing the electric wiring substrate of the pad to the recording element substrate (Makoto, paragraph [0009]).
Takada teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the channel forming member includes: a first layer (“liquid flow path wall 6”, Figure 2A) disposed on a side of the first face and defining the pressure chamber (Paragraph [0207] describes how the “liquid flow path wall 6” defines the “liquid flow path 5”, which communicates with the “communicating path 105” and both serve as the “common liquid chamber”. Figure 2A further displays how the “liquid flow path wall 6” is disposed on the surface of the “element substrate 2”.); and a second layer (“orifice plate 3”, Figure 2A) disposed on a side of the first layer opposite from the substrate (Figure 2A displays how the “liquid flow path wall 6” is located between the “orifice plate 3” and the “element substrate 2”.), the second layer having the ejection port (Figure 2A displays how the “orifice plate 3” includes the “discharge port 4” as described in paragraph [0206].).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein the channel forming member includes: a first layer disposed on a side of the first face and defining the pressure chamber; and a second layer disposed on a side of the first layer opposite from the substrate, the second layer having the ejection port, and wherein the opening is disposed in the first layer taught by Takada. This would have been done for the for the purpose of creating a liquid flow path for the ink to be ejected.
Regarding claim 3, The liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, the first layer has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers) (Figure 2A and paragraph [0207] describe how the “liquid flow path wall 6” has a height “Tn”, perpendicular to the “element substrate 2” surface, to have an example thickness of 13 µm. This falls within the given claimed range.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein, in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, the first layer has a height of greater than or equal to 3 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm (micrometers) taught by Takada. This would have been done for the for the purpose of manufacturing preferences on layer thickness.
Regarding claim 8, The liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein the first layer is disposed in contact with the first face of the substrate (Figure 2A further displays how the “liquid flow path wall 6” is disposed on the surface of the “element substrate 2”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein the first layer is disposed in contact with the first face of the substrate taught by Takada. This would have been done for the for the purpose of creating a liquid flow path for the ink to be ejected.
Modified Okushima disclose all of the claimed limitations except for the following:
Regarding claim 5. The liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein the first layer and the pad array have a distance from each other of greater than or equal to 2 µm and less than or equal to 200 µm (micrometers).
Modified Okushima discloses the claimed invention except for the first layer and the pad array have a distance from each other of greater than or equal to 2 µm and less than or equal to 200 µm (micrometers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the first layer and the pad array have a distance from each other of greater than or equal to 2 µm and less than or equal to 200 µm (micrometers), 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.
Regarding claim 9, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein the first layer includes polyethylene glycol.
Modified Okushima discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first layer includes polyethylene glycol. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize polyethylene glycol, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use for the purpose of having an advantage in terms of cost and manufacturing tact (Makoto, paragraph [0024]) that is of an insulating material (Makoto, paragraph [0017]). In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416. Material
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okushima et al. (US 20170197420 A1), Makoto et al. (JP 2014151561 A), and Takada et al. (US 20030081091 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Toda et al. (US 20240399747 A1)
Modified Okushima discloses the following limitations:
Regarding claim 4, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 2, wherein, in a direction that is parallel to the first face, and that is orthogonal to a direction in which the pad array extends, on a side of the pad array near the ejection port.
Modified Okushima fails to teach the following limitations:
Regarding claim 4, a distance between the first layer and the pad array is less than a distance between the second layer and the pad array.
Toda to teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 4, on a side of the pad array near the ejection port, a distance between the first layer and the pad array is less than a distance between the second layer and the pad array (Figure 6 displays how the “nozzle plate 1” with an edge that is further inward than the edge of the “flow channel plate 2”. Combining the pad taught by Makoto, the different lengths of the “nozzle plate 1” edge and the “flow channel plate 2” edge of the fluid ejection head would be obvious. With the “nozzle plate 1” edge located further inward, the distance from the edge of the “nozzle plate 1” to the pad, taught by makoto, would be greater than the distance from the edge of the “flow channel plate 2” to the pad.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply on a side of the pad array near the ejection port, a distance between the first layer and the pad array is less than a distance between the second layer and the pad array taught by Toda. This would have been done for the for the purpose of changing the length of the layers to improve ejection stability (Toda, paragraph [0024])
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okushima et al. (US 20170197420 A1) and Makoto et al. (JP 2014151561 A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Takada et al. (US 20030081091 A1).
Okushima fails to teach the following limitations:
Regarding claim 12, wherein the channel forming member includes: a first layer disposed on a side of the first face and defining the pressure chamber; and a second layer disposed on a side of the first layer opposite from the substrate, the second layer having the ejection port, and wherein the structure and the first layer are made of the same material
Regarding claim 17. The liquid ejection head according to Claim 12, wherein the first layer is disposed in contact with the first face of the substrate.
Takada teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 12, wherein the channel forming member includes: a first layer (“liquid flow path wall 6”, Figure 2A) disposed on a side of the first face and defining the pressure chamber (Paragraph [0207] describes how the “liquid flow path wall 6” defines the “liquid flow path 5”, which communicates with the “communicating path 105” and both serve as the “common liquid chamber”. Figure 2A further displays how the “liquid flow path wall 6” is disposed on the surface of the “element substrate 2”.); and a second layer (“orifice plate 3”, Figure 2A) disposed on a side of the first layer opposite from the substrate (Figure 2A displays how the “liquid flow path wall 6” is located between the “orifice plate 3” and the “element substrate 2”.), the second layer having the ejection port (Figure 2A displays how the “orifice plate 3” includes the “discharge port 4” as described in paragraph [0206].).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply the wherein the channel forming member includes: a first layer disposed on a side of the first face and defining the pressure chamber; and a second layer disposed on a side of the first layer opposite from the substrate, the second layer having the ejection port taught by Takada. This would have been done for the for the purpose of creating a liquid flow path for the ink to be ejected.
Regarding claim 17. The liquid ejection head according to Claim 12, wherein the first layer (“liquid flow path wall 6”, Figure 2A) is disposed in contact with the first face of the substrate (Figure 2A further displays how the “liquid flow path wall 6” is disposed on the surface of the “element substrate 2”.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply wherein the first layer is disposed in contact with the first face of the substrate taught by Takada. This would have been done for the for the purpose of creating a liquid flow path for the ink to be ejected.
The combination of Makoto and Takada teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 12, wherein the structure and the first layer are made of the same material (Paragraph [0024] describes how the “insulating projection 5” and the “orifice plate 3”, which includes the first layer according to the teachings of Takada, are formed from an identical insulating material.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply wherein the structure and the first layer are made of the same material taught by Makoto. This would have been done for the for the purpose of having an advantage in terms of cost and manufacturing tact (Makoto, paragraph [0024]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okushima et al. (US 20170197420 A1), Makoto et al. (JP 2014151561 A), and Takada et al. (US 20030081091 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Toda et al. (US 20240399747 A1)
Modified Okushima discloses the following limitations:
Regarding claim 15, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 12, wherein, in a direction that is parallel to the first face, and that is orthogonal to a direction in which the pad array extends, on a side of the pad array near the ejection port.
Modified Okushima fails to teach the following limitations:
Regarding claim 15, a distance between the first layer and the pad array is less than a distance between the second layer and the pad array.
Toda teaches the following limitations:
Regarding claim 15, the liquid ejection head according to Claim 12, wherein, in a direction that is parallel to the first face, and that is orthogonal to a direction in which the pad array extends, the first layer and the pad array have, on a side of the pad array near the ejection port, a distance from each other that is less than a distance between the second layer and the pad array (Figure 6 displays how the “nozzle plate 1” with an edge that is further inward than the edge of the “flow channel plate 2”. Combining the pad taught by Makoto, the different lengths of the “nozzle plate 1” edge and the “flow channel plate 2” edge of the fluid ejection head would be obvious. With the “nozzle plate 1” edge located further inward, the distance from the edge of the “nozzle plate 1” to the pad, taught by makoto, would be greater than the distance from the edge of the “flow channel plate 2” to the pad.).
Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid discharge head taught by Okushima to also apply on a side of the pad array near the ejection port, a distance between the first layer and the pad array is less than a distance between the second layer and the pad array taught by Toda. This would have been done for the for the purpose of changing the length of the layers to improve ejection stability (Toda, paragraph [0024]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13-14 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 13, the primary reason for allowance of claim 13 is the inclusion of “wherein, in plan view of the element substrate, the structure is positioned to surround each of the plurality of pads.”
Regarding claim 14, the primary reason for allowance of claim 14 is the inclusion of “wherein, in plan view of the element substrate, the structure is positioned to surround the pad array.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights