DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/21/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the bonded surface of at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the excess adhesive” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites wherein the second substrate has a bonded surface but then seemingly proceeds to recite that either of the first substrate and the second substrate can have the previously recited bonded surface. Clarification is required.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim appears to be broader than claim 3, from which claim 4 depends. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is not understood to what “the excess adhesive” is intended to refer. Clarification is required.
Because claim 8 depends from claim 7, it is also rejected on this basis.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “at least one functional film formed in the second substrate,” but the figures appear to show a functional film on the second substrate, not in it. Clarification is required.
Because claims 14-16 depend from claim 13, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8, 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Misumi et al. (9,346,274).
Regarding claim 1, Misumi teaches a liquid ejection head substrate comprising: an energy generation element for imparting energy to liquid, the liquid ejection head substrate comprising:
a first substrate (fig. 2, item 2);
a second substrate (fig. 2, item 1/6) comprising a bonded surface (fig. 2, upward facing surface of second substrate) bonded to a bonded surface of the first substrate (fig. 2, downward facing surface of item 2) via an adhesive (fig. 2, item 10) and provided with wiring (fig. 2, item 7/8) connected to the energy generation element (fig. 2, item 17) and a covering layer (fig. 2, item 9) covering the wiring; and
a member provided on the bonded surface of at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate and in a position where the member does not overlap the wiring in a direction in which the first substrate and the second substrate are laminated (see illustration),
wherein the member has a height so that a second thickness of the adhesive on the covering layer provided on the wiring is greater than a first thickness of the adhesive on the member (see illustration).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1, wherein
the member has a height large enough to ensure, as the second thickness, a thickness capable of suppressing occurrence of damage to the covering layer on the wiring based on a load during the bonding and stress due to warpage of a substrate caused by a temperature change and due to expansion and contraction of a scaling agent scaling a connection portion connected with an external terminal (Misumi, see fig. 2, Note that this is the case. Note that the claim limitation is a desired result of the claimed structural configuration of claim 1, but the immediate claim does not add any structure to the apparatus. Without any further specification on what features allow for the suppression of damage, the claim language itself does not narrow the scope).
Regarding claim 3, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 2, wherein the second thickness is 0.6 μm or more (col. 6, lines 25-27). Further, it should be noted that, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions are present, and thus even if the claimed range was not disclosed by the art, such a range would not be inventive because it has been arrived at by routine optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 3, wherein the second thickness is 1.0 μm or more (col. 6, lines 25-27). Further, it should be noted that, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions are present, and thus even if the claimed range was not disclosed by the art, such a range would not be inventive because it has been arrived at by routine optimization.
Regarding claim 5, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first thickness is 0 μm or more and less than 0.3 μm (col. 6, lines 25-27). Further, it should be noted that, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions are present, and thus even if the claimed range was not disclosed by the art, such a range would not be inventive because it has been arrived at by routine optimization.
Regarding claim 6, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1, wherein a third thickness of the adhesive between the first substrate and the second substrate during the bonding is 3.5 μm or less (col. 6, lines 25-27). Further, it should be noted that, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, all of the general conditions are present, and thus even if the claimed range was not disclosed by the art, such a range would not be inventive because it has been arrived at by routine optimization.
Regarding claim 7, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1, wherein a first recess capable of accommodating the excess adhesive is formed on the bonded surface of the first substrate (see fig. 2, see recesses in first substrate 2).
Regarding claim 8, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 7, wherein the member is provided on the bonded surface of the second substrate (see fig. 2, note that the member rests on top of the covering layer, which lays on top of the second substrate), and the first recess is formed in a region which the member may contact during the bonding so that an area of the first recess formed in the region is 0% or more and less than 20% of an area of the region (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1, wherein a liquid chamber (fig. 2, item 12) storing liquid to which energy is to be imparted by the energy generation element is formed in the second substrate (see fig. 2, note that the second substrate forms a portion of the liquid chamber), and the member is provided in a position where the member does not overlap the liquid chamber in a plane orthogonal to the laminated direction (see fig. 2, note that, as defined in the illustration above, the member does not overlap the liquid chamber).
Regarding claim 12, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1, wherein the member is formed of an inorganic material (col. 2, line 47).
Regarding claim 13, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1, wherein the member is provided on the bonded surface of the second substrate (see fig. 2, note that the member, the bonded surface and both substrates can be said to be “on” each other as they are all stacked) and formed of a material identical to a material for at least one functional film formed in the second substrate (see fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misumi.
Regarding claim 14, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 13. Misumi does not teach wherein the member is formed of a material identical to a material for a pad for electrical connection. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a change in shape is generally not patentable unless it has a functional impact. Here, it appears the relative thicknesses of the pad and the member are do not, in fact, have such a functional impact and thus are being considered obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 14, Misumi does not teach wherein the member is formed to have a thickness equal to a thickness of the pad. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a change in shape is generally not patentable unless it has a functional impact. Here, it appears the relative thicknesses of the pad and the member are do not, in fact, have such a functional impact and thus are being considered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 14, Misumi does not teach wherein the member is formed to have a thickness different from a thickness of the pad. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a change in shape is generally not patentable unless it has a functional impact. Here, it appears the relative thicknesses of the pad and the member are do not, in fact, have such a functional impact and thus are being considered obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1. Misumi does not teach wherein the wiring has a thickness greater than a thickness of the covering layer. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a change in shape is generally not patentable unless it has a functional impact. Here, it appears the relative thicknesses of the pad and the member are do not, in fact, have such a functional impact and thus are being considered obvious.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misumi in view of Yasuda et al. (2021/0379890).
Regarding claim 17, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1. Misumi does not teach wherein the wiring is formed of metal containing at least aluminum, and the covering layer is formed of a silicon compound film. Yasuda teaches this (Yasuda, [0043]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to compose the wiring and protective covering layers disclosed by Misumi with the materials disclosed by Yasuda because doing so would amount to using known materials to construct known components in an inkjet printhead to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misumi in view of Takemoto et al. (2012/0212547).
Regarding claim 11, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 10. Misumi does not teach a third substrate bonded to a second bonded surface of the second substrate facing a first bonded surface bonded to the first substrate via the adhesive and comprising an ejection port communicating with the liquid chamber and being capable of ejecting the liquid stored in the liquid chamber, wherein a second recess capable of accommodating the excess adhesive is formed on the second bonded surface, and the second recess is formed in a region where the second recess overlaps the member during the bonding in a plane parallel to the second substrate so that an area of the second recess formed in the region is 0% or more and less than 20% of an area of the region. Takemoto teaches this (Takemoto, see fig. 1, Note that, if the second substrate is taken to be 32, the first substrate is taken to be 16, and the third substrate is taken to be 30, all substrate relations are met. Note liquid chamber 32A, ejection port 30A. Note that Misumi teaches the recesses in positions that do not overlap the pressure chambers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third substrate, as disclosed by Takemoto, to the first and second substrates disclosed by Misumi because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Misumi teaches the liquid ejection head substrate according to claim 1. Misumi does not teach wherein the pad is formed of metal made of a seed layer and metal made of a plating layer. Takemoto teaches this (Takemoto, [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a pad of an aluminum seed layer and a gold plating layer, as disclosed by Takemoto, in the device disclosed by Misumi because doing so would amount to applying a known material composition to a known device to obtain predictable results. Further, it would have been obvious to compose the member of the same two metals because doing so would allow for construction of the member at the same time as the pad.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights