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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 February 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1:
-replace “a nozzle plate” in the last line with --the nozzle plate--
In Claim 8:
-replace “a nozzle plate” in the last line with --the nozzle plate--
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft et al (US 9,855,566).
Regarding claim 1, Craft et al disclose a method for improving adhesion of a nozzle plate to a flow feature layer of a fluid ejection head (Figures 9 and 10) comprising: providing a silicon substrate (12) having a device surface containing at least one array of fluid ejectors (14) thereon; spin-coating a photoresist material (40) onto the device surface of the silicon substrate (12); exposing the photoresist material (40) to actinic radiation through a mask (56) to provide the flow feature layer, wherein the mask (56) contains opaque areas (60) defining a plurality of fluid flow channels (20) and fluid chambers (22) in the photoresist material and masked areas adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels and fluid chambers, wherein the opaque geometric particles are effective to provide a roughened surface area in the masked areas adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels (20) and fluid chambers (22) for increased adhesion between the roughened surface area of the photoresist material and a nozzle plate (50) attached to the flow feature layer (Figures 9 and 10; column 6, lines 20-39).
Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting the mask used in the masked areas adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels and fluid chambers contains a plurality of opaque geometric particles having a size ranging from about 1 to about 5 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of opaque geometric particles having a size ranging from about 1 to about 5 microns, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize a plurality of opaque geometric particles having a size ranging from about 1 to about 5 microns in order to obtain a better adhesion stability.
Regarding claim 2, Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting wherein the opaque geometric particles have a density in the mask that decreases an intensity of the actinic radiation by about 20 to about 50%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the opaque geometric particles have a density in the mask that decreases an intensity of the actinic radiation by about 20 to about 50%, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize the opaque geometric particles have a density in the mask that decreases an intensity of the actinic radiation by about 20 to about 50% in order to obtain a better adhesion stability.
Regarding claim 3, Craft et al further disclose the opaque geometric particles cause concavities to be developed in the photoresist material that provide the roughened surface area adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels and fluid chambers (Figures 9 and 10; column 6, lines 20-39).
Regarding claim 4, Craft et al further disclose the opaque geometric particles cause geometric patterns selected from the group consisting of circles, triangles, rectangles, zig-zag lines, crosses, straight lines and spaces, dots, and combinations of two or more of the foregoing to be developed in the photoresist material to provide the roughened surface area of the flow feature layer (Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 5, Craft et al further disclose wherein the photoresist material comprises a negative photoresist material (column 2, lines 41-49).
Regarding claim 6, Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting wherein the opaque geometric particles comprise chrome particles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Y, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One would have been motivated to use chrome particles for the purpose of obtaining exceptional surface durability and wear resistance.
Regarding claim 7, Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting wherein the opaque geometric particles in the mask have a particle density ranging from about 1.2% to about 55% of a total area of the mask. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a particle density ranging from about 1.2% to about 55% of a total area of the mask, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize a particle density ranging from about 1.2% to about 55% of a total area of the mask in order to obtain a better adhesion stability.
Regarding claim 8, Craft et al disclose a method for making a fluid jet ejection head (Figures 9 and 10) comprising: providing a silicon substrate (12) having a device surface containing at least one array of fluid ejectors (14) thereon; laminating or spin-coating a photoresist material (40) onto the device surface of the silicon substrate; exposing the photoresist material (40) to actinic radiation through a mask (56) to provide a flow feature layer, wherein the mask contains opaque areas (60) defining a plurality of fluid flow channels (20) and fluid chambers (22) in the photoresist material and masked areas adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels (20) and fluid chambers (22), wherein the opaque geometric particles are effective to provide a roughened surface area in the masked areas adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels and fluid chambers for increased adhesion between a developed surface of the photoresist material and a nozzle plate (50) attached to the roughened surface area of the flow feature layer; etching a fluid supply via in the silicon substrate (column 3, lines 55-67); developing the photoresist material (40) to provide the plurality of fluid flow channels (20) and fluid chambers (22) therein and the roughened surface area that provides improved surface adhesion characteristics (column 5, lines 8-24); and attaching a nozzle plate (50) to the roughened surface area of the flow feature layer (Figures 9 and 10; column 6, lines 20-39).
Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting the mask used in the masked areas adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels and fluid chambers contains a plurality of opaque geometric particles having a size ranging from about 1 to about 5 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of opaque geometric particles having a size ranging from about 1 to about 5 microns, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize a plurality of opaque geometric particles having a size ranging from about 1 to about 5 microns in order to obtain a better adhesion stability.
Regarding claim 9, Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting wherein the opaque geometric particles have a density in the mask that decreases an intensity of the actinic radiation by about 20 to about 50%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the opaque geometric particles have a density in the mask that decreases an intensity of the actinic radiation by about 20 to about 50%, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize the opaque geometric particles have a density in the mask that decreases an intensity of the actinic radiation by about 20 to about 50% in order to obtain a better adhesion stability.
Regarding claim 10, Craft et al further disclose the opaque geometric particles cause concavities to be developed in the photoresist material that provide the roughened surface area adjacent to the plurality of fluid flow channels and fluid chambers (Figures 9 and 10; column 6, lines 20-39).
Regarding claim 11, Craft et al further disclose the opaque geometric particles cause geometric patterns selected from the group consisting of circles, triangles, rectangles, zig-zag lines, crosses, straight lines and spaces, dots, and combinations of two or more of the foregoing to be developed in the photoresist material to provide the roughened surface area of the flow feature layer (Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 12, Craft et al further disclose wherein the photoresist material comprises a negative photoresist material (column 2, lines 41-49).
Regarding claim 13, Craft et al further disclose wherein the nozzle plate (50) is laminated to the surface of the flow feature layer in the absence of oxygen plasma treatment of roughened surface area of the flow feature layer (Figure 8; column 6, lines 9-19).
Regarding claim 14, Craft et al further disclose wherein the nozzle plate is laminated to the surface of the flow feature layer in the absence of silane coating the roughened surface area of the flow feature (Figure 8; column 6, lines 9-19).
Regarding claim 15, Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting wherein the opaque geometric particles comprise chrome particles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Y, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One would have been motivated to use chrome particles for the purpose of obtaining exceptional surface durability and wear resistance.
Regarding claim 16, Craft et al disclose the claimed invention except for reciting wherein the opaque geometric particles in the mask have a particle density ranging from about 1.2% to about 55% of a total area of the mask. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a particle density ranging from about 1.2% to about 55% of a total area of the mask, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize a particle density ranging from about 1.2% to about 55% of a total area of the mask in order to obtain a better adhesion stability.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 on 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights