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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS’s) submitted on 23 October 2024 and 11 February 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements have been 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.
Claims 1-2 & 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Boucher et al. (US 2003/0193545 A1).
As related to independent claims 1, 9, & 10, Boucher et al. teaches a manufacturing method [claim 10] of a liquid ejection apparatus [claim 9] comprising a liquid ejection head [claim 1] (Boucher et al. – Page 3, Paragraph 22 and Figure 2a, Reference #204, shown below) comprising: an element substrate having a terminal (Boucher et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 25-27 and Figure 2b, Reference #210 & #218, shown below); and a wiring substrate including a wiring portion connected to the terminal in contact therewith (Boucher et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 24 & 30 and Figure 2b, Reference #232 & #242, shown below) and bonded [i.e. with polymer like epoxy] to a first surface on which the terminal of the element substrate is provided (Boucher et al. – Page 4, Paragraph 31 and Figure 2b, Reference #224, shown below), wherein on the element substrate, a plurality of the terminals forms a terminal array arranged along an end portion of the element substrate (Boucher et al. – Figure 2b, Reference #210, shown below) and in a direction perpendicular to the first surface on the element substrate [i.e. up/down direction] (Boucher et al. – Figure 2b, Reference ##210, shown below), a second distance between the end portion of the element substrate and the wiring portion (Boucher et al. – Figure 2b, Reference #210 & #242, shown below) is greater than a first distance between the first surface and a portion opposite to the terminal of the wiring portion (Boucher et al. – Figure 2b, Reference #242 & #218, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 2, Boucher et al. continues to teach the wiring substrate has an inclined portion inclining in a direction in which the inclined portion becomes distant from the first surface on the element substrate and in a case of being viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the inclined portion overlaps the end portion of the element substrate (Boucher et al. – Figure 2b, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 6, Boucher et al. continues to teach a non-conductive paste applied between the element substrate and the wiring portion, wherein connection between the wiring portion and the terminal is maintained by the non- conductive paste (Boucher et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 31 & 36 and Figure 2b, Reference #224, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 7, Boucher et al. continues to teach the element substrate has an ejection port ejecting liquid and an element generating energy for ejecting liquid from the ejection port (Boucher et al. – Page 3, Paragraphs 22 & 25 and Figure 2b, Reference #215 & #211, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 8, Boucher et al. continues to teach the element is a piezoelectric element (Boucher et al. – Page 3, Paragraph 25 and Figure 2b, Reference #215, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 11, Boucher et al. continues to teach a step of: applying a non-conductive paste maintaining connection between the terminal and the wiring portion before the connecting (Boucher et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 31, 32, & 36 and Figure 2b, Reference #224, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 12, Boucher et al. teaches in the connecting, the terminal and the wiring portion are bonded by pressure bonding by a tool for holding the wiring substrate (Boucher et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 19-20 and Pages 3-4, Paragraph 30).
As related to further dependent claim 13, Boucher et al. teaches the tool has a pressure surface pressing the wiring substrate and an adsorption surface located above the pressure surface in the vertical direction and adsorbing the wiring substrate and in the connecting, by part of the wiring substrate being pressed by the pressure surface and by a portion of the wiring substrate, which is not pressed by the pressure surface, being sucked up by the adsorption surface, an inclined portion inclining so as to become distant from the terminal is formed on the wiring substrate (Boucher et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 19-20; Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 30-31; and Figure 2b, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 14, Boucher et al. teaches applying a non-conductive paste maintaining connection between the terminal and the wiring portion before the connecting, wherein in the connecting, the non-conductive paste is cured and the shape of the inclined portion is maintained (Boucher et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 19-20; Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 30-31; and Figure 2b, shown above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher et al. (US 2003/0193545 A1) in view of Fukai et al. (US 8,827,424 B2).
As related to dependent claim 5, Boucher does not specifically teach the element substrate has a step more distant from the wiring portion than the first portion. Fukai et al. teaches a liquid ejection head comprising an element substrate having a terminal (Fukai et al. – Column 1, Lines 50-67 and Figure 11C, shown below) and specifically teaches the element substrate has a step more distant from the wiring portion than the first portion (Fukai et al. – Column 7, Lines 4-15 and Figure 8, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the element substrate of Boucher et al. with the element substrate with a step and bonding material of Fukai et al. in an effort to provide a liquid ejection head having sealing resin in groove portions to ensure the sealing resin can flow to the electrode terminals, cures properly, prevents corrosion and short circuiting in the head (Fukai et al. – Column 1, Lines 50-67 and Column 6, Lines 48-67).
PNG
media_image3.png
232
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
202
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of Boucher et al. and Fukai et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach he angle of the inclined portion is 160 degrees or more with respect to the first surface (Boucher et al. – Figure 2b, Reference #240 & #242, shown above and Fukai et al. – Figure 8, Reference #1302, shown above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher et al. (US 2003/0193545 A1) in view of Kanda et al. (US 8,454,129 B2).
Boucher et al. does not specifically teach a wiring portion with a concave portion. However, Kanda et al. teaches a liquid ejection head having a wiring substrate including a wiring portion which is also sealed by a sealing agent (Kanda et al. – Column 1, Lines 28-40 and Column 4, Lines 31-67) and specifically teaches the wiring portion has a concave portion concave in a direction in which the concave portion becomes distant from the first surface on the element substrate (Kanda et al. – Column 4, Lines 31-67 and Figure 4, Reference #103 & #104, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wiring portion of Boucher et al. with the wiring portion and sealing agent of Fukai et al. in an effort to provide a liquid ejection head having sealing agent the protects the recording head and prevents wiring portions from pulling apart (Kanda et al. – Column 1, Lines 28-40 and Column 2, Lines 29-56).
PNG
media_image5.png
292
412
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kondo et al. (US 2010/0194826 A1) teaches a liquid ejection head having an inclined substrate and a pressure driver. Choi (US 2015/0382445 A1) teaches a liquid ejection head and printed circuit board for control wherein the flexible circuit board is mounted in a bent or folded state. Sugiura et al. (US 2017/0087833 A1) teaches a liquid ejection head with a double sided circuit substrate having inclined wiring members. Hirai et al. (US 2022/0258472 A1) teaches a liquid ejection head having an inclined substrate and a pressure driver. IDE et al. (US 2023/0018898 A1) teaches a liquid ejection head having an inclined substrate and a pressure driver. YOKOO et al. (US 2023/0020830 A1) teaches a liquid ejection head having an inclined substrate and a pressure driver.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights