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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 7-11 and New Claims 16-21 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2008/0129780 A1), hereinafter “Cha”, in view of Sugihara et al. (US 2016/0291466 A1), hereinafter “Sugihara”.
Regarding Claim 7, Cha teaches a microfluidic device comprising:
a hydrophilic substrate 134 (Fig. 3) of a hydrophilic material (See the “ink-philic coating” 234 of Fig. 4 and [0056]: “the first ink-philic coating layer 234 formed of thermally oxidized silicon”, wherein the disclosed “thermally oxidized silicon” is a known hydrophilic material. When silicon is thermally oxidized, oxygen atoms diffuse into the silicon lattice and react to form silicon dioxide (SiO₂). The Si–O bonds in the oxide can form hydrogen bonds with water, making the surface readily wettable by water.),
a first fluid interface region including the hydrophilic material exposed at the first fluid interface region (See the instant specification reciting “the first fluid interface region can define an opening of an ejection port”. See the annotated Fig. 3 above labeling the “opening” which is hydrophilic due to the hydrophilic substrate 134 exposed at the first fluid interface region.); and
a second fluid interface region including a definable hydrophobic composition applied on the hydrophilic material at the second fluid interface region (See the instant specification reciting “the second fluid interface region can form a counter bore around the ejection port of the inkjet printhead”. See the annotated Fig. 3 above. – [36]: “an ink-phobic coating layer 138”. As discussed above, as the ink-philic substrate is of a hydrophilic material, the ink-phobic portions are hydrophobic so as to be the opposite. – See also Cha Claim 16: “the ink-phobic coating layer is formed using a microcontact printing technique” and [0013]: “an ink-phobic coating layer selectively formed on the ink-philic coating layer disposed around the nozzles”),
Further regarding Claim 7, Cha does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the definable hydrophobic composition is a photo-definable hydrophobic composition comprising a polyether modified siloxane admixed with a polymeric photoresist, as in Claim 7.
However, Sugihara teaches resist compositions and methods for producing resist patterns for photoresists ([0037-0038, 0187, 0269, 0411]), wherein a photoresist material of Sugihara comprises a photo-definable hydrophobic composition comprising a polyether modified siloxane admixed with a polymeric photoresist ([0442]: “The above resist compositions of Examples and Comparative Examples further contain 0.002 parts of polyether modified silicone oil...) as a surfactant”. See thereabove Table 1 ([0441-0442]) showing varying options for the polymeric photoresist resin (Ex. 1-18) in combination with the polyether modified silicone oil -- silicone oils are also known as polysiloxanes having a backbone consisting of alternating silicon and oxygen atoms.). Therein, such a composition represents a sufficient option for patterning the ink-phobic portion 138 of Cha (Fig. 3), wherein the photolithographic patterning of layers as in Sugihara represents a mere obvious alternative to the inkjet patterning utilized by Cha, achieving the identical function of forming a material layer, and wherein photolithography is common in the precision fabrication of inkheads.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Cha wherein the definable hydrophobic composition is a photo-definable hydrophobic composition comprising a polyether modified siloxane admixed with a polymeric photoresist, such as suggested by Sugihara, as a mere obvious alternative to the inkjet patterning utilized by Cha, achieving the substantially identical function of forming a material layer, and wherein photolithography is common in the precision fabrication of inkheads.
Further, using photolithography for forming layers on a surface represents one of a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to forming layers on a surface, and thereby would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as a mere obvious alternative achieving a substantially identical result, such a substantially identical intended result further representing a reasonable expectation of success in Cha – See MPEP 2143(E).
Further regarding Claim 7, Cha does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the hydrophilic material has a water contact angle from about 50° to about 90°; and wherein photo-definable hydrophobic composition having a water contact angle from about 91° to about 150°,wherein a differential between the water contact angle of the hydrophilic material at the first fluid interface region and the water contact angle of the photo-definable hydrophobic composition at the second fluid interface region is from about 20° to about 80°, as in Claim 7.
However, Cha discusses tuning of the ink-phobic and ink-philic arrangement as being advantageous for droplet ejection ([0009]: “In the inkjet printhead having the above-described construction, the surface treatment of the nozzle plate 30 directly affects the ink ejecting performance of the inkjet printhead, for example, the straightness and ejection rate of droplets of ink ejected via the nozzles 31. That is, in order to improve the ink ejecting performance of the inkjet printhead, an inner wall of the nozzle 31 must be ink-philic, while the surface of the nozzle plate 30 outside the nozzle 31 must be ink-phobic.”). Therein, water contact angle is a known quantitative measure of hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity (wettability) (And wherein the recited water-contact angles provided by Applicant are drawn to mere definitions of hydrophobic and hydrophilic with regard to water contact angle and thereby represent no more than further designation of the respective surfaces as hydrophobic/hydrophilic.) and, since the prior art of Cha commensurately teaches the claimed hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the respective contact angles through routine experimentation to achieve the desired balance between ink confinement in the nozzle and preventing ink from spreading onto the droplet face (the droplet ejection efficiency discussed by Cha). The claim merely recites a particular hydrophilic and hydrophobic range, and separation therebetween, which all lie within workable ranges of hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity achievable through routine experimentation as mentioned above.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to optimize the hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity (wettability) of Cha so as to achieve optimized droplet ejection (As discussed by Cha [0009].) considered as a result-effective variable at the time the invention was made optimizable through tuning a known parameter (contact angle) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Cha teaches the device discussed above wherein the first fluid interface region and the second fluid interface region are positioned along separate portions of an interior wall of a microfluidic channel 131 (See the annotated Fig. 3 above showing the first fluid interface region and the second fluid interface region are positioned along separate portions of an interior wall of a microfluidic channel 231), and wherein at a location within microfluidic channel where the first fluid interface region abuts the second fluid interface region, a fluidic mixing region is formed when fluid is flowed through the microfluidic channel 131 (As the claim merely requires a “region” wherein the mixing channel is a mere nominal designation thereof, the region of Cha where the first fluid interface region abuts the second fluid interface region, as seen through the annotated Fig. 3 above, represents a mixing region. Further, mixing of the ink is expected to occur as it travels through the interface as liquid is never entirely static.), as in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, Cha teaches the device discussed above further comprising an electrode positioned at the second fluid interface region of the microfluidic channel (See Fig. 1 showing the prior art incorporated therein Cha by reference showing an electrode positioned at (proximate to) the second fluidic interface region, wherein such an arrangement is common in the use of piezoelectric inkjet printing. Applicant may wish to further structurally specify the particular position of the electrode.), as in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Cha teaches the device discussed above wherein the microfluidic device is an inkjet printhead and the first fluid interface region defines an opening of an ejection port and the second fluid interface region is located outside of and around the opening (See the rejection of Claim 7 above characterizing the device of Cha as it is disclosed as an inkjet printhead consistent with the embodiments discussed in Applicant’s specification. – See the annotated Fig. 3 above. – Further, merely stating that the arrangement of Claim 7 is an inkjet printhead provides no further structural limitations defining the claim over the prior art. As long as the elements of the claim 7 are commensurately taught by the prior art, the prior art is commensurately drawn to an inkjet printhead as such a designation is merely nominal in nature. Additionally, the “first fluid interface region defines an opening of an ejection port” is interpreted broadly herein as merely providing a generic region of the device, wherein any spatial region is capable of “defining” an ejection port. Applicant may wish to positively recite the “an ejection port” instead of inferentially relating said injection port via non-structural region language.), as in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 10 as discussed above. Further, Cha teaches the device discussed above wherein the second fluid interface region is applied on a counter bore around the ejection port of the inkjet printhead (See the annotated Fig. 3 above showing the material forming the second fluid interface region as being a layer 138 deposited on the substrate 134. As the inner-channel edges of the layer 138 surround by an elevated portion the opening, such inner-channel edges form a counter bore around the opening/ejection port. – Examiner further notes that this recitation is provided as a process-type recitation “is applied on”, and does not positively recite the “a counter bore” but instead inferentially relates the counter bore via another generic region similarly as above in Claim 10. Further similarly as above, Applicant may wish to positively recite the counter bore rather than inferring said counter-bore via non-structural region-based language.), as in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Cha teaches the device discussed above wherein the hydrophilic material is...fused silica... ([0015]: “the ink-philic coating layer may be formed of thermally oxidized silicon” therein, thermally oxidized silicon and silica are both primarily SiO2 and are both produced by oxidizing silicon, thus representing the same material.), as in Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Cha does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the photo-definable hydrophobic composition has a photo-definable resolution of from about 0.1 μm to about 10 μm, as in Claim 17.
However, Sugihara (Discussed as in Claim 17 for substituting the inkjet patterning of the hydrophobic material in Cha with photo-lithography instead.) teaches optimization of a resolution of the photo-definable resolution depending on the desired resolution of the resist pattern selected ([0411]: “The exposure source can be selected depending on resolution of the intended resist pattern, examples of the exposure source preferably include known one such as a light source emitting a light of 345 to 436 nm of wavelength or a light source emitting a light of 345 to 400 nm of wavelength, more preferably g ray (wavelength: 436 nm), h ray (wavelength: 405 nm) and i ray (wavelength: 365 nm).”). Therein, the resolution is seen as an obvious matter of design choice depending on the specific photoresist pattern which would be used in Cha, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the resolution so as to achieve the desired shape/specificity/precision of the resulting solid layer best achieving the sought effects of the solid layer, and is thereby seen as a result-effective variable (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Cha does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the photo-definable hydrophobic composition has an ink contact angle from about 300 to about 60°, as in Claim 18.
However, as discussed above regarding Claim 7, the particular water contact angles displayed by the respective hydrophilic material and the respective hydrophobic material are seen herein as result-effective variables which would be obvious to optimize through routine experimentation so as to achieve a desired effect of increased droplet ejection efficiency, as discussed by Cha ([0009]), and as further discussed above regarding Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Cha in view of Sugihara as combined above regarding Claim 7 teaches the device discussed above wherein the polyether modified siloxane is present at from about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% and the polymeric photoresist is present at from about 95 wt% to about 99.99 wt% (Sugihara [0442]: “The above resist compositions of Examples and Comparative Examples further contain 0.002 parts of polyether modified silicone oil...” -- 0.002 parts is equal to 0.2%. To convert any number of parts to a percentage (parts per hundred), simply multiply the part value by 100. – Weight % = parts x 100 – Therein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to follow this guidance in Sugihara when implementing the particular photoresist mixture in Cha so as to achieve the desired properties intended by Sugihara, and is therefore taught by Cha in view of Sugihara.), as in Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 7 as discussed above. Further, Cha in view of Sugihara as combined above regarding Claim 7 teaches the device discussed above wherein the polymeric photoresist comprises an epoxy-based negative photoresist (See Table 1 showing the various epoxy bases used in embodiments of the resist of Sugihara. See further Sugihara para. [0411] discussing the resist structure being formed in the shape of a mask irradiated by light, thereby representing a negative photoresist. Therein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to follow this guidance in Sugihara when implementing the particular photoresist mixture in Cha so as to achieve the desired properties intended by Sugihara, and is therefore taught by Cha in view of Sugihara.), as in Claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Sugihara, as applied to Claims 7-11 and 16-20 above, and in further view of Murakami et al. (JP 2004/042399 A – as seen through the machine translation available on Google Patents and attached herein.), hereinafter “Murakami”.
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 11 as discussed above. Further, Cha/Sugihara does not specifically teach the device discussed above wherein the counter bore has a tapered shape, as in Claim 21.
However, Murakami teaches a respective inkjet printing head (Abstract) wherein a counter-bore about an opening of the microfluidic ink channel of the print head is outwardly tapered (Figs. 3-6) so as to ensure the ink flow remains filled to the tip of the printhead opening so as to be ready to eject a droplet (Abstract: “By making the tapered angle of the expanding portion smaller than the contact angle between the ink and the ejection port plate member, the ink is filled up to the tip of the ink ejection nozzle.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the device of Cha/Sugihara wherein the counter bore has a tapered shape, such as suggested by Murakami, so as to ensure the ink flow remains filled to the tip of the printhead opening so as to be ready to eject a droplet, thereby reducing errors due to improper ink flow to the printhead tip opening.
Additionally, while this recitation is examined herein for the purposes of advancing prosecution, the counter bore is not a positively claimed element of the instant device and is not given particular patentable weight herein. See Claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights