CTNF 18/904,430 CTNF 99503 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 October 2, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of the claim recites, “ Wherein number of the sub branching portions which branch off at the first sub branching position of the first sub branching flow channel is different from number of the sub branching portions which branch off at the second sub branching position of the second sub branching flow channel ( emphasis added ).” The highlighted sections appear to be missing articles indicating the antecedent basis of the recited elements. An example amendment to the claim that would overcome the objection reads, “Wherein a number of the sub branching portions which branch off at the first sub branching position of the first sub branching flow channel is different from a number of the sub branching portions which branch off at the second sub branching position of the second sub branching flow channel.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kanaris et al. (GB 2563719 A), hereinafter Kanaris . Regarding claim 1, Kanaris teaches a liquid ejecting head comprising: head chips configured to eject a liquid (figs. 3A-C, 4, 6A-B; manifold components 50, arrays 150, nozzle rows 155; pg. 7, lns 16-23, pg. 23, lns. 6-10, pg. 28, lns. 12-20); and a distribution flow channel member including a distribution flow channel formed by laminating flow channel substrates in a direction of lamination and configured to distribute and supply the liquid to the head chips (fig. 4, 7A-C, 8A-C, 9A; upper manifold component 100, layers 910-950; pg. 23, lns. 19-28, pg. 33, lns. 12-31, pg. 34, lns. 1-20), wherein the distribution flow channel includes a main branching flow channel having a first main branching portion and a second main branching portion which branch off at a main branching position (fig. 9A; branched inlet path 180(2), branching point 186(2), first-level sub-branches 185(2)(i)(a-b); ), a first sub branching flow channel being a flow channel disposed between the main branching flow channel and the head chips with respect to the direction of lamination and configured to communicate with the first main branching portion, the first sub branching flow channel including a first sub branching portion A and a first sub branching portion B which branch off at a first sub branching position (fig. 7A-C, 9A; second-level sub-branches 182(2)(a-b); pg. 34, lns. 21-33, pg. 36, lns. 24-28, pg. 40, lns. 10-23), and a second sub branching flow channel being a flow channel disposed at a position equivalent to a position of the first sub branching flow channel with respect to the direction of lamination and configured to communicate with the second main branching portion, the second sub branching flow channel including a second sub branching portion A and a second sub branching portion B which branch off at a second sub branching position (figs. 7A-C, 9A; second-level sub-branches 182(2)(c-d); pg. 34, lns. 21-33, pg. 36, lns. 24-28, pg. 40, lns. 10-23). Regarding claim 2, Kanaris teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1, further comprising: a filter unit incorporating a filter through which the liquid passes and is supplied to the main branching flow channel (fig. 7A-C, 10; filter layer 920, filter 925; pg. 34, lns. 8-20). Regarding claim 12, Kanaris teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus comprising: the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1; and a liquid reservoir configured to reserve the liquid to be supplied to the liquid ejecting head (pg. 12, lns. 7-16 teaches a “fluid supply system” connected to the ink inlet 120 that supplies ink to the ejection head) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaris (GB 2563719 A) . Regarding claim 4, Kanaris teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1. Kanaris fails to explicitly teach wherein the main branching flow channel further includes a third main branching portion which branches off at the main branching position, and the distribution flow channel includes a third sub branching flow channel being a flow channel disposed at a position equivalent to the position of the first sub branching flow channel with respect to the direction of lamination and configured to communicate with the third main branching portion, the third sub branching flow channel including a third sub branching portion A and a third sub branching portion B which branch off at a third sub branching position. However, Kanaris teaches that the branching paths could branch into any suitable number of sub-branches, including three, four, or more sub-branches (pg. 49, lns. 8-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a third main branching portion of a form generally corresponding to either the first or second main branching portions taught by Kanaris, and a third sub branching flow channel of a form generally corresponding to either the first or second sub-branching flow channels, into the upper manifold component of Kanaris in order to provide liquid supply to additional lower manifold components, i.e. print chips, in order to provide for an ejection head of suitable size (pg. 4, lns. 1-32, pg. 5, lns. 1-19). Regarding claim 5, Kanaris teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 4. Kanaris fails to explicitly teach wherein the first sub branching flow channel further includes a first sub branching portion C which branches off at the first sub branching position. However, Kanaris teaches that the branching paths could branch into any suitable number of sub-branches, including three, four, or more sub-branches (pg. 49, lns. 8-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a third sub branching portion of a form generally corresponding to the sub branching portions A or B, branching off at the first sub branching position, in order to provide liquid supply to additional lower manifold components, i.e. print chips, in order to provide for an ejection head of suitable size (pg. 4, lns. 1-32, pg. 5, lns. 1-19). Regarding claim 6, Kanaris teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1. Kanaris fails to explicitly teach wherein the first sub branching flow channel further includes a first sub branching portion C which branches off at the first sub branching position. However, Kanaris teaches that the branching paths could branch into any suitable number of sub-branches, including three, four, or more sub-branches (pg. 49, lns. 8-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a third sub branching portion of a form generally corresponding to the sub branching portions A or B, branching off at the first sub branching position, in order to provide liquid supply to additional lower manifold components, i.e. print chips, in order to provide for an ejection head of suitable size (pg. 4, lns. 1-32, pg. 5, lns. 1-19). Regarding claim 7, Kanaris teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1. Kanaris fails to explicitly teach wherein a number of the sub branching portions which branch off at the first sub branching position of the first sub branching flow channel is different from a number of the sub branching portions which branch off at the second sub branching position of the second sub branching flow channel. However, Kanaris teaches that the branching paths could branch into any suitable number of sub-branches, including three, four, or more sub-branches (pg. 49, lns. 8-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid ejecting head of Kanaris to comprise, for example, an odd number of lower manifold components, i.e. print chips, which would necessitate the number of first sub branching portions to differ from the number of second sub branching portions. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform this modification to produce a suitably sized ejecting head that is practical for a user to handle and that uses a small number of inlet ports (pg. 4, lns. 1-32, pg. 5, lns. 1-19) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanaris (GB 2563719 A) in view of Watanabe (US 20220024207 A1) . Regarding claim 3, Kanaris teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1, further comprising: a flow channel pipe configured to define an introduction port to introduce the liquid to the main branching flow channel (fig. 9A; fluid inlet 120(2); pg. 12, lns. 13-30, pg. 24, lns. 30-34, pg. 25, lns. 1-7). Kanaris fails to teach or fairly suggest a relay board electrically coupled to the head chips, wherein the distribution flow channel member is disposed between the relay board and the head chips with respect to the direction of lamination, and the relay board includes any of a through hole and a cutout into which the flow channel pipe is inserted. However, Watanabe teaches a liquid ejection head comprising a relay board electrically coupled to the head chips, wherein the distribution flow channel member is disposed between the relay board and the head chips with respect to the direction of lamination, and the relay board includes any of a through hole and a cutout into which the flow channel pipe is inserted (figs. 3, 5; wiring substrate 35, openings 357, coupling pipes 373; ¶[0051]-[0056], [0062]) is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the relay board into the liquid ejection head of Kanaris in order to provide for a more compact and space-efficient liquid ejection head (¶[0255]-[0256]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 8-11 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding dependent claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the liquid ejecting head according to the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein a distance from the main branching position to an end portion of the second main branching portion that is opposite from the main branching position is shorter than a distance from the main branching position to an end portion of the first main branching portion that is opposite from the main branching position when viewed in the direction of lamination. Regarding dependent claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the liquid ejecting head according to the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein a distance from the first sub branching position to an end portion of the first sub branching portion B that is opposite from the first sub branching position is shorter than a distance from the first sub branching position to an end portion of the first sub branching portion A that is opposite from the first sub branching position when viewed in the direction of lamination . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akahane et al. (US 20150273851 A1) teaches a flow passage member comprising branching flow paths . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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. /TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 7 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 8 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 9 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/904,430 Page 10 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights