DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/18/2026 has been entered.
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) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuno (JP2015150768A) in view of Law (US2012/0042518A1).
Tokuno discloses the claimed invention as follows (refer to Figs. 3, 17 and 18; limitations not disclosed by Tokuno are crossed out, below):
Claim 9. A liquid ejection head (structure of Fig. 3) comprising:
a substrate (31), comprising:
a first surface (lower surface of 31 in Fig. 3);
a second surface (upper surface of 31 in Fig. 3) on a side opposite to the first surface;
a plurality of liquid ejection ports (1) that open on the second surface;
a plurality of liquid supply ports (45) opening on the first surface, each liquid supply port corresponding one-to-one to a respective one of the plurality of ejection ports (see [0032]-[0034]; there are plural pressure chambers 38 and, therefore, plural corresponding liquid supply ports); and
a plurality of dedicated flow paths (34 with 38 and 1), each dedicated flow path connecting one of the liquid supply ports and a corresponding one of the liquid ejection ports, wherein each of the dedicated flow paths includes:
a second flow path (34 with 38) portion communicating with the first flow path portion and extending in a direction parallel to the first surface and the second surface; and
the corresponding liquid ejection port (1) extending from the second flow path portion to the second surface, wherein, when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface and the second surface, the each liquid supply port and the corresponding liquid ejection port do not overlap each other,
wherein a perfluoropolyether liquid repellent film (4, Fig. 16; see [0016]) is formed on the second surface, and
wherein a film (see film on sides of nozzle hole 1, in Fig. 18) formed inside the liquid ejection port is more hydrophilic1 than the perfluoropolyether liquid repellent film formed on the second surface, comprises a portion of the perfluoropolyether liquid repellent film remaining inside the liquid ejection port, and has an F atom concentration of 0.9 or less when an F atom concentration of the perfluoropolyether liquid repellent film formed on the second surface is defined as 1 (Refer to footnote 2. It is readily apparent that at the concentration of F atoms tends to 0 in the direction toward the first surface. Therefore, a region must exist, distal from the second surface, wherein the concentration of F atoms is 90% or less of the concentration of F atoms in film 4 on the second surface..
Claim 10. The liquid ejection head according to claim 9, wherein the film formed inside each liquid ejection port is continuous with the perfluoropolyether liquid repellent film (see Fig. 18)).
Whereas Tokuno discloses bonding the nozzle plate 2 to the plate 35 within the first day after the removal process, Tokuno does not mention the liquid ejection head as a whole being assembled within the first day. The rejection relies upon the fact that as the PFPE material migrates toward the first surface, the claimed properties of hydrophilicity and F atom concentration are met. It is unclear what happens after a sufficient time has passed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to continue manufacturing of the entire head, after the bonding process, such that the liquid ejection head manufacturing is completed within one day. Selecting a desired manufacturing timeframe would have required only routine skill in the art. Within this first day, it is understood from Tokuno that the PFPE film has not yet fully migrated to the first surface, thereby meeting the claimed properties, at some point in time.
Regarding the flow path, it is known in the art to form liquid ejection heads in which the flow path has a portion extending from the first surface in a direction intersecting the first surface and the second surface. See Fig. 1 of Law, which shows a structure corresponding to flow path unit 31 of Tokuno. Law discloses a flow path including, among other portions, a vertical portion extending away from the supply port 40, a portion extending horizontally, and the nozzle opening 50. In view of the teachings of Law, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize for flow path unit 31 of Tokuno an alternative design as shown by Law to be conventional in the art, as a matter of selecting among known flow path unit designs, with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the newly-added limitations, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Tokuno, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Like Kimura, Tokuno lacks a dedicated flow path system as claimed. Instead, Tokuno also adopts a typical inkjet head configuration including pressure chambers and a common liquid chamber. There is no disclosure or suggestion of a "one- to-one" supply port array in which, for each ejection port, a corresponding independent supply port opens on the first surface.
Moreover, Tokuno does not disclose or suggest a residual fluorinated film state as claimed. Rather, Tokuno teaches removing PFPE material from regions where adhesion is desired and preventing re-migration of PFPE material to those regions.
Tokuno contains no disclosure of fluorine concentration measurements, no disclosure of a fluorine concentration ratio relative to an intact PFPE surface film, and no disclosure that plasma treatment produces a controlled residual PFPE-derived film having reduced fluorine concentration while still remaining inside the nozzle structure.
The Office Action assumes that migration or thinning of the PFPE film necessarily results in increased hydrophilicity and reduced fluorine concentration. However, film thinning or migration alone does not inherently establish chemical modification of the PFPE surface. A thinner PFPE film may still present fluorinated surface termination and therefore maintain hydrophobic surface properties. Thus, a reduction in film thickness is not equivalent to a reduction in fluorine concentration or the claimed hydrophilized residual PFPE film structure. As such, Tokuno does not disclose or suggest a film formed inside each liquid ejection port that is more hydrophilic than the perfluoropolyether liquid repellent film formed on the second surface and that has an F atom concentration of 0.9 or less when an F atom concentration of the perfluoropolyether liquid repellent film is defined as 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. For each pressure chamber 38 there is a corresponding supply port 38 and ejection port 1. Tokuna merely discloses a flow path not having a vertical portion corresponding to the claimed first flow path. With respect to the fluorine concentration, the examiner agrees Tokuna does not explicitly disclose the claimed ratio. However, Tokuno discloses that when the produced nozzle plate is left as it is, the molecules of PFPE in the liquid repellent film 4 formed on the droplet discharge surface of the nozzle plate 2 gradually move through the inner wall surface of the nozzle hole (FIG. 18; after one day has passed). Eventually, when two or more days have passed, it is considered that PFPE reaches the liquid chamber joint surface of the nozzle plate. This is described in [0091]. Therefore, as liquid repellent material starts to move along the inner wall surface of the nozzle, the concentration will necessarily be 0 where the material hasn’t reached yet, and close to 0 at a leading edge of the advancing film. With the concentration on the second surface being 1, there will obviously be a decreasing concentration gradient, tending to 0 with increasing distance from the second surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2023/0303869A1 is another reference showing a flow path similar to that claimed. See Fig. 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm ET.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
1 Tokuno removes liquid-repellent film 4 from the surfaces opposite the droplet ejection surface, to obtain a structure as shown in Fig. 17. Because PFPE film migrates toward the liquid chamber, Tokuno teaches bonding the nozzle plate 2 to a plate 35 within the first day after the removal process, to avoid the PFPE film reaching the bonding surface. See [0016] and [0091]. It is readily apparent that the migrating portion of the PFPE film becomes thinner, in a direction away from the nozzle opening. Therefore, it is inherent that this film has a higher hydrophilicity than the film 4 on the second surface (as mentioned by Kimura, the higher the number of liquid-repellent groups, the larger the contact angle; see Kimura [0111]). Since the migrating portion of the film necessarily becomes thinner in a direction away from the second surface, the contact angle decrease, i.e. hydrophilicity increases. See the further obviousness rationale for further details.
Prosecution Insights