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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukamoto (U.S. Pub. 2023/0311505)
Regarding claim 1, a liquid discharge head comprising: a nozzle plate (10) having multiple nozzles, arrayed in a nozzle array direction (Figures 3C, 5C; Paragraph 0036), to discharge droplets
A channel substrate (30) having a first face bonded to the nozzle plate; and a second face opposite to the first face (Figure 5c; Paragraph 0034)
The channel substrate including: partition walls (37); an end partition wall at an end of the channel substrate (30) in the nozzle array direction (Figures 3B, 5C; Paragraph 0048)
Multiple individual channels (12) partitioned by the partition walls and the end partition wall, the multiple individual channels respectively communicating with the multiple nozzles (14) (Figure 5C; Paragraphs 0036-0037)
A holding substrate (80) bonded to the second face of the channel substrate, the holding substrate having a first outer wall at an end of the holding substrate in the nozzle array direction (Figure 5c; Paragraphs 0034, 0043)
Wherein the end partition wall has a second outer wall at the end of the channel substrate in the nozzle array direction
The second outer wall of the channel substrate is interior of the first outer wall of the holding substrate in the nozzle array direction (Figure 5C)
Regarding claim 2, wherein the end partition wall has a width equal to or larger than each width of the partition walls (Figure 5C)
Regarding claim 5, liquid discharge head (Paragraphs 0033-0034)
Regarding claim 6, liquid discharge device (Paragraph 0033)
Regarding claim 7, liquid discharge apparatus comprising the liquid discharge head (Paragraphs 0033-0034)
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto (U.S. Pub. 2023/0311505)
Regarding claim 3, Tsukamoto discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a distance between the first outer wall of the holding substrate and the second outer wall of the end partition wall is equal to or larger than a width of the end partition wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate a distance between the first outer wall of the holding substrate and the second outer wall of the end partition wall is equal to or larger than a width of the end partition wall, 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 to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a distance between the first outer wall of the holding substrate and the second outer wall of the end partition wall is equal to or larger than a width of the end partition wall, for the purpose of allowing proper support of the liquid ejection recording element while suppressing blockage of ink flow channels caused by adhesive spread
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Tsukamoto discloses a second outer wall of the channel substrate is interior of the first outer wall of the holding substrate in the nozzle array direction, but does not expressly disclose a third outer wall disposed at the same position as the first outer wall of the holding substrate in the nozzle array direction. The primary reason for the allowance of claim 4 is the inclusion of the limitation of the third outer wall is disposed at the same position as the first outer wall of the holding substrate in the nozzle array direction. It is this limitation found in each of the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 X. 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.
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights