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.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-11 & 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species B through E, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/4/2026.
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 1-3, 12, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al. (US 20200101733 A1; herein referred to as “Hagiwara”) in view of Takabe (WO 2019176211 A1). Please note that page references to Takabe are directed toward the highlighted portions on specific pages of an annotated English copy that has been provided.
With respect to claim 1, Hagiwara teaches a liquid ejecting head (“1”; Hagiwara: Fig. 5) comprising:
a first head chip (“circulation chip 44A”) including a first nozzle group (“Na” of chip “44A”, also shown on one side in Fig. 11) and a first common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11) communicating with the first nozzle group (“Na” of chip “44A”; Hagiwara: Fig. 5-6, 10-11, & 15);
a second head chip (“circulation chip 44B”) including a second nozzle group (“Na” of chip “44B”, also shown on the right side in Fig. 11) and a second common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11) communicating with the second nozzle group (“Na” of chip “44B”; Hagiwara: Fig. 5-6, 10-11, & 15); and
a flow path structure body (“60”) including a plurality of flow path substrates stacked in a first direction (“80”, including “81” through “85”, stacked in a Z-direction; Hagiwara: Fig. 5 & 15-16), and including
a first flow path having a first common portion (i.e., portion within path “61A”, which includes “611” through “614”, as shown in Fig. 15, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11) that communicates with the first common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11, wherein the chip “44” is specifically the first head chip “44A”) and the second common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11, wherein the chip “44” is specifically the second head chip “44B”) and extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (X-direction is perpendicular to Z-direction; Hagiwara: Fig. 11, 13, & 15), and
Hagiwara is silent on
a first flexible member defining a portion of the first common portion (i.e., portion within path “61A”, which includes “611” through “614”, as shown in Fig. 15, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11).
Takabe teaches a liquid ejecting head (“10”; Takabe: Fig. 1) comprising:
a first flexible member (“36”) defining a portion of the first common portion (“first common flow path 40” which includes “45” and “37”; Takabe: p. 9-10 & Fig. 2-3). In other words, Takabe teaches that a first flexible member can define part of a first common flow path “40”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hagiwara’s first common portion (i.e., portion within path “61A”, which includes “611” through “614”, as shown in Fig. 15, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11) by having a part of it defined by a first flexible member, such as “36” taught by Takabe. This modification would be beneficial because it alleviates residual vibrations, as stated: “Further, when the pressure of the ink in the first common flow path 40 become slower than the internal pressure of the first compliance space 51, the flexible region of the first flexible portion 36 changes from the initial state to the first common flow path 40 side. It is displaced to. Thereby, the pressure vibration generated in the ink in the ink flow path, particularly the ink in the first common flow path 40 in accordance with the recording operation of the recording head 10, that is, the ink ejection operation, in other words, the residual vibration after the ink ejection. Alleviated. [sic]” (Takada: p. 10). The dampening of vibrations is beneficial in that it ensures higher print quality and also lessens the stress on the overall liquid ejection head which can increase its lifespan.
With respect to claim 2, Hagiwara in view of Takabe teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1, wherein
the flow path structure body (“60” ;Hagiwara: Fig. 5 & 15-16) includes
a second flow path having a second common portion (i.e., portion within path “62A”, which includes “621A” through “623A”, as shown in Fig. 16, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11) that communicates with the first common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11 that is associated with chip “44A”) and the second common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11 that is associated with chip “44B”) and extends in the second direction (X-direction; Hagiwara: Fig. 11, 13, & 16), and
and the plurality of flow path substrates (“80”, including “81” through “85”, stacked in a Z-direction; Hagiwara: Fig. 5 & 15-16) include
a first flow path substrate (“82”) that defines the second common portion (i.e., defining the sides “621A”, which is part of the portion within path “62A”, which includes “621A” through “623A”, as shown in Fig. 16 and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11), and
a second flow path substrate (“84”) that defines the first common portion (i.e., defining the sides of “614”, which is part of the portion within path “61A”, which includes “611” through “614”, as shown in Fig. 15, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11).
Hagiwara is silent on
a second flexible member defining a portion of the second common portion (portion within path “62A”, which includes “621A” through “623A”, as shown in Fig. 16, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11).
a first flow path substrate (“82”; Hagiwara: Fig. 15 & 16) that … defines a first compliance space together with the first flexible member, and
a second flow path substrate (“84”; Hagiwara: Fig. 15 & 16) that … defines a second compliance space together with the second flexible member.
Takabe teaches
a second flexible member (“54”) defining a portion of the second common portion (“second common flow path 41” which includes “46”, “48”, and “49”; Takabe: p. 11 & Fig. 2). In other words, Takabe teaches that a second flexible member can define part of a first common flow path “41”.
a first flow path substrate (“82”; Hagiwara: Fig. 15 & 16) that … defines a first compliance space together with the first flexible member (“first flexible portion 36” defines a “first compliance space 51” with walls defining the “first common flow path 40”]; Takabe: p. 9-10 & Fig. 2-3). In other words, Takabe’s first compliance space “51” is defined by a wall of a first flow path “40” and a first flexible member “36”.
and a second flow path substrate (“84”; Hagiwara: Fig. 15 & 16) that … defines a second compliance space together with the second flexible member (“second flexible portion 54” defines a “second compliance space 55” with walls defining the “second common flow path 41”]; Takabe: p. 11 & Fig. 2-3). In other words, Takabe’s second compliance space “55” is defined by a wall of a second flow path “41” and a second flexible member “54”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hagiwara’s second common portion (portion within path “62A”, which includes “621A” through “623A”, as shown in Fig. 16, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11) by having a part of it defined by a first flexible member, such as “54” taught by Takabe. This modification would be beneficial because it alleviates residual vibrations (Takada: p. 10). The dampening of vibrations is beneficial in that it ensures higher print quality and also lessens the stress on the overall liquid ejection head which can increase its lifespan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a first flexible member and a second flexible, both taught by Takabe, into Hagiwara’s liquid ejection head “1”,wherein these flexible members define part of first common flow path and a second common flow path, respectively (as discussed above). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the addition of these flexible members taught by Takabe could beneficially result in a first compliance space and second compliance space within the first flow path substrate and second flow path substrate, respectively, of Hagiwara’s liquid ejection head “1”. Because Takabe teaches that each flexible member (“36” and “54”) within its respective portion (“40” and “41”) can define a respective compliance space (“51” and “55”), it is obvious that flexible members such as Takabe’s “36” and “54” placed with Hagiwara’s first and second path substrates (“82” and “84”), respectively, would similarly result in respective compliance spaces. Moreover, it would beneficial to do so, because Takabe teaches a compliance space formed by a flexible member and the walls of the flow path that it is within beneficially alleviates residual vibrations in the liquid ejection head (Takada: p. 10-11). The dampening of vibrations is beneficial in that it ensures higher print quality and also lessens the stress on the overall liquid ejection head which can increase its lifespan. Applying this teaching of Takabe to both flow path substrates taught by Hagiwara (“82” and “84”) is beneficial because it further dampens vibrations within the liquid ejection head “1” and lessens the stress on multiple portions of the head “1”. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these benefits hold true even when the flexible members are placed in slightly different locations (such as higher/lower in the z-direction) throughout a flow path within a liquid ejection head.
With respect to claim 3, Hagiwara in view of Takabe teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of flow path substrates include a third flow path substrate (“83”) that is disposed between the first flow path substrate (“82”) and the second flow path substrate (“84”) and defines the first common portion (i.e., defining the sides of “610” and “614”, which are parts of the portion within path “61A”, which includes “611” through “614”, as shown in Fig. 15, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11) and the second common portion (i.e., defining the sides of “621A” and “622A”, which are parts of the portion within path “62A”, which includes “621A” through “623A”, as shown in Fig. 16, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11).
With respect to claim 12, Hagiwara in view of Takabe teaches the liquid ejecting head according to claim 2, wherein
the first flow path (i.e., path “61A” which continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11) is a flow path for supplying a liquid (i.e., see flow direction arrows in Fig. 15) to the first common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11, wherein the chip “44” is specifically the first head chip “44A”) and the second common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11, wherein the chip “44” is specifically the second head chip “44B”; Hagiwara: Fig. 11, 13, & 15), and
the second flow path (i.e., path “62A”, which includes “621A” through “623A”, as shown in Fig. 16, and continues into relevant “SR”s as shown in Fig. 11) is a flow path for collecting a liquid (i.e., see flow direction arrows in Fig. 16) from the first common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11, wherein the chip “44” is specifically the first head chip “44A”) and the second common liquid chamber portion (“SR” on one side in Fig. 11, wherein the chip “44” is specifically the second head chip “44B”; Hagiwara: Fig. 11, 13, & 16).
With respect to claim 15, Hagiwara teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus comprising:
the liquid ejecting head (“1”; Hagiwara: Fig. 5) according to claim 1; and
a liquid storage portion (“2”) that supplies a liquid to the liquid ejecting head (“1”; Hagiwara: ¶0042 & Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 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, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights