DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misawa et al. (2014/0184704) in view of Iwase et al. (2024/0360324) in view of and Qiu et al. (2016/0229875).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, Misawa teaches an ink-repellent member ([0011]) comprising an underlying portion (fig. 1, item 202) containing a tantalum oxide ([0031]), the underlying portion having a fluorine compound ([0033]) bonded to a surface thereof (see fig. 1, note fluorine film 202 on tantalum oxide film 203),
wherein the fluorine compound is bonded to the surface via a Ta-O-Si bond ([0031]-[0033], note that this is necessarily the case. That is, the limitation is being taken to be inherent in the reference).
wherein the fluorine compound has a main chain having a perfluoropolyether structure ([0034]).
Misawa does not teach wherein, when a static contact angle and a receding contact angle of the surface after the ink-repellent member is subjected to an immersion treatment are represented by Θ and Θr, respectively, the Θ is 100° or more Iwase teaches this (Iwase, [0380]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the device disclosed by Misawa to the immersion treatment disclosed by Iwase because doing so would amount to combining a known technique to a known substrate to yield predictable results. That is, because immersion treatments are a well-known technique for obtaining desired contact angles for substrates, it would have been obvious to apply the technique to the substrate.
Misawa does not teach wherein the fluorine component has a perfluoromethyl group at and end thereof
wherein the fluorine compound has at least one of a structure represented by formula (2), a structure represented by formula (3), a structure represented by formula (4), and a structure represented by formula (5): CF-CF-CF-O CF CF-CF-O CF-O n3 CF-CF-O n4 n2 n1 (2) (3) (4) (5) in the formulae (2), (3), (4), and (5), n1, n2, n3, and n4 each independently represent an integer of 1 or more. Iwase teaches this (Iwase, [0047], Note CF(CF3) - CF2 with perfluoropolyether main chain and perfluoromethyl end unit CF3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorine compound disclosed by Iwase for the ink repellent film disclosed by Misawa because doing so would amount to combining a known water repellant fluorine compound composition with a known water repellent fluorine compound to obtain predictable results. That is, because Misawa does not go into detail about the specific formula of its compound, it would have been obvious to look to Iwase for such details.
Misawa in view of Iwase does not teach wherein Θ - Θr is less than 15°. Qiu teaches wherein a receding contact angle and a static contact angle are within (Qui, Table 1, EX3b, Note static contact angle of 101.6 and receding contact angle of 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a film with a receding contact angle in the general range of the static contact angle, as disclosed by Qiu, in the device disclosed by Misawa in view of Iwase because doing so would amount to applying a known range of contact angles to a known device to obtain predictable results. While Applicant’s arguments with respect to the differences in the structural formulae of Misawa and Qui is well-taken, the rejection only asserts that the range of contact angles would have been obvious to apply to a variety of surfaces, not that the formulae are the same.
The prior art does not expressly teach wherein the immersion treatment is as follows:
(1) a test piece including the surface is cut out of the ink-repellent member, is placed in a sealable container containing an aqueous solution having a pH of 11, and is immersed in the aqueous solution SO that the test piece is entirely immersed therein ([0378]),
(2) the test piece is maintained at 70°C for 170 hours under a sealed state after the immersion in (1). However, for purposes of rejection, it should also be noted that the steps of the immersion treatment seem to be directed to a method of manufacture, not an article and thus are not being given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, Misawa in view of Iwase and Qiu teaches the ink-repellent member according to claim 1 further comprising a base material (Misawa, fig. 1, item 201), wherein the underlying portion is arranged on the base material (Misawa, see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misawa in view of Iwase and Qiu as applied to claims 7 above, and further in view of Yamada (2022/0266595).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Yamada teaches an ink ejection apparatus with a nozzle surface made of an inorganic oxide that produced an article by ejecting liquid containing a functional material for forming functional thin film a functional element (Yamada, [0014], Note that ink is a functional material, and ink is ejected to form an image in the form a film). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ink-repellent coating disclosed by Misawa in view of Iwase and Qiu to the nozzle surface disclosed by Yamada because doing so would amount to combining a known ink-repellent film composition to a known surface in need of such a composition to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
