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
2. Claim 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
3. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the elections of inventions I, II & III in the restriction as stated are improper. This is not found persuasive because each of the invention as cited in the restriction acquires a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 does not contain any new limitations that are not presented in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cringus et al. (2013/0050341) in view of Halko et al. (US 6102521).
Cringus et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
* Re clm 1, an apparatus (Abst., paras 0040-0044, fig 1);
* a nozzle plate/nozzle surface that contains the nozzles, 45/ (clm 13, figs 1, 5, 6 & 9);
* a substrate/nozzle surface 40/ (figs 1, 5, 6 & 9);
* a plurality of nozzle holes/17/ disposed through the substrate from a first surface/bottom or inner side of nozzle surface 45/ to an opposing second surface/top or outer side of nozzle surface 45/ to define nozzles of a printhead/3/, wherein the nozzle holes/area below the surface the surface of 17/ at the second surface/top or outer surface/ define nozzle discharge orifices/17/ of the nozzles (paras 0062, figs 1, 5, 6 & 9);
* at least one laser-altered/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ surface texture formed directly/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ on the second surface/top or outer side of nozzle surface 45/ of the substrate via a laser treatment/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ to define at least one of a non-wetting region/10/ and a wetting region/11, 40/ on the second surface (para 0062, figs 1, 5, 6 & 9).
* Re clm 2, wherein: the at least one laser-altered/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ surface texture defines the non-wetting region/11/ over a surface area of the second surface/top or outer surface of the nozzle surface 45/ (para 0062, figs 1 & 9).
* Re clm 3, wherein the at least one laser-altered surface texture;
* a first laser-altered/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ surface texture that defines the non-wetting region/10/ on the second surface (para 0062, figs 1 & 9);
* a second laser-altered/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ surface texture that defines the wetting region on the second surface/11, 40/ (para 0062, figs 1 & 9).
* Re clm 4, wherein: the non-wetting region/9/ surrounds the nozzle discharge orifices; and the wetting region/11/ is separated from the nozzle discharge orifices by the non-wetting region (para 0054, figs 5, 6).
* Re clm 5, wherein: the nozzle discharge orifices are disposed in one or more rows in a longitudinal direction of the nozzle plate; and the wetting region/10, 40/ includes: a longitudinal segment/40/ disposed in the longitudinal direction; and a plurality of strip segments/10/ disposed at an angle from the longitudinal segment toward a row of the nozzle discharge orifices.
* Re clm 6, wherein: the strip segments/10/ decrease in width from the longitudinal segment toward the row (see fig 9)
* Re clm 7, wherein: the non-wetting region/10/ is disposed in a jetting zone of the nozzle plate; and the wetting region/the wide portion of 11/ is disposed in a non-jetting zone of the nozzle plate (para 0054, figs 5, 6).
* Re clm 8, wherein: the non-wetting region/10/ has superhydrophobic characteristics/repels water/.
* Re clm 10, the printhead/3/ comprising the nozzle plate (fig 9, see claim 13).
* Re clm 11, an image forming apparatus/printing apparatus/ (paras 0040-0044, fig 1)
* the printhead/3/ (Abst., paras 0040-0044, fig 1).
Cringus et al. does not disclose the following claimed limitation:
* a metal substrate
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a metal substrate, since it has been held to be with in the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use for the purpose of minimizing the buildup of residual ink (In re Leshin, 125, USPQ 416).
Furthermore, Halko et al. disclose the following claimed limitation:
* a metal substrate/gold-plated nickel 10/
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a metal substrate, taught by Halko et al. into Cringus et al. for the purpose of improving ink ejection they by improving printing quality,
9. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cringus et al. (2013/0050341) as modified by Halko et al. (US 6102521) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 2006/0209127).
Cringus et al. as modified by Halko et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitation:
* Re clm 9, wherein: the at least one laser-altered/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ surface texture further defines an ultraviolet absorption region on the second surface.
Inoue disclose the following claimed limitation:
* Re clm 9, wherein: the at least one laser-altered/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ surface texture further defines an ultraviolet absorption region/48/ on the second surface/top surface side of nozzle plate.36/ (para 0059) for the purpose of providing good nozzles in a printhead.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize wherein: the at least one laser-altered/method of making, not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim/ surface texture further defines an ultraviolet absorption region on the second surface for the purpose of providing good nozzles in a printhead.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTAL FEGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-530pm.
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 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KRISTAL FEGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853