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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 January 2025, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 16 January 2025 are accepted.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2004/0080583).
With respect to claim 1, Lim discloses a liquid ejection head comprising:
a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 4, element 138) configured to eject liquid (Fig. 6B, element 150; paragraphs 0005, 0007);
a plurality of individual flow paths (Fig. 4, element 132) respectively communicating with the plurality of nozzles (paragraph 0062); and
a plurality of actuators (Fig. 4, element 142) provided on respective nozzle forming walls (Fig. 4, elements 138a, 138b) of the plurality of individual flow paths (paragraphs 0063, 0075), wherein
the liquid in the plurality of individual flow paths is ejected (Fig.6C, element 150’) from the plurality of nozzles (Fig. 6C, element 138) by driving the plurality of actuators (Fig. 4, element 142), and
a cross-sectional area (Fig. 4 below, i.e. Wt) of a liquid introduction part (Fig. 4, element 134) into which the liquid is introduced from a common flow path (Fig. 4, element 136), the cross-sectional area being located on a side of the individual flow path facing the nozzle forming wall, is smaller than a cross-sectional area (Fig. 4 below, i.e. Wb) on a side of the nozzle forming wall of the individual flow path.
[AltContent: textbox (Wt)][AltContent: textbox (Wb)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
346
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning the location of the actuators are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Lim as applied above.
With respect to claim 5, Lim discloses the cross-sectional area (Fig. 4 above, i.e. Wt) of the liquid introduction part (Fig. 4, element 134) is smaller than a cross-sectional area of a vibration portion (Fig. 4 above, i.e. length of element 121 on the left or right side) of a vibration film (Fig. 4, element 121) on the side of the nozzle forming wall (Fig. 4, element 138a).
With respect to claim 6, Lim discloses the cross-sectional area (Fig. 4 above, i.e. Wt) of the liquid introduction part (Fig. 4, element 134) is smaller than a cross-sectional area (Fig. 4 above, i.e. length of element 142) of the actuator (Fig. 4, element 142).
With respect to claim 7, Lim discloses the plurality of individual flow paths (Fig. 4, element 132) are formed by a Bosch process.
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning how the liquid ejection head is manufactured are not seen to further limit the structure of the claims and are not seen to distinguish the structure over Lim as applied above or in any subsequent claims.
With respect to claim 8, Lim discloses a flow path substrate (Fig. 4, element 110) in which the plurality of individual flow paths (Fig. 4, element 132) are formed has a driving circuit (Fig. 4, element 144) for applying a voltage to the actuator (Fig. 4, element 142; paragraph 0067).
With respect to claim 9, Lim discloses the actuator (Fig. 4, element 142) is formed at a temperature of 450 oC or less.
With respect to claim 10, Lim discloses the actuator (Fig. 4, element 142) is formed by sputtering.
With respect to claim 11, Lim discloses a liquid ejection apparatus (paragraphs 0004-0005, i.e. ink droplet ejection mechanism) comprising: the liquid ejection head (paragraph 0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 2 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. The primary reasons for allowance for claim 2 is that applicant’s claimed invention includes a liquid ejection head having an individual flow path, a nozzle forming wall, and a the liquid introduction part, where when a width of the individual flow path on the side of the nozzle forming wall is given as Wb and a width of the liquid introduction part is given as Wt, as viewed from a direction orthogonal to a liquid ejection direction, a formula 0.7 Wt/Wb < 0.99 is satisfied. It is this limitation, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
2. Claims 3 and 4 are objected to for being dependent upon claim 2.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 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, 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 06/03/2026
Prosecution Insights