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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase et al. (2024/0360324) in view of Misawa et al. (2014/0184704) and Qiu et al. (2016/0229875).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7 and 8, Iwase teaches an ink-repellent member ([0322]) comprising an underlying portion ([0323]) containing a silicon oxide ([0323]), the underlying portion having a fluorine compound ([0323]) bonded to a surface thereof ([0323]), 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 ([0380]):
and 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 (see below).
Iwase teaches wherein the underlying portion contains silicon oxide, not tantalum oxide, as now required by the claim. Misawa teaches wherein ink-repellant coatings can be made with either or both of silicon oxide and tantalum oxide (Misawa, [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use tantalum oxide instead of silicon oxide, as disclosed by Misawa, in the underlying portion disclosed by Iwase because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one obvious variant oxide for another to obtain predictable results.
Iwase in view of Misawa 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 Iwase in view of Misawa because doing so would amount to applying a known range of contact angles to a known device to obtain predictable results.
Note that, for purposes of all rejections the claimed ink jet head and ink ejection surface are being interpreted to be part of the preambles of the claims and thus are not being given patentable weight. Further, 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 claims 3 and 9, Iwase in view of Misawa and Qiu teaches the ink-repellent member according to claim 1,
Regarding claim 4, Iwase in view of Misawa and Qiu teaches the ink-repellent member according to claim 1 further comprising a base material (Iwase, [0322], substrate), wherein the underlying portion is arranged on the base material (Iwase, [0322]).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Iwase in view of Misawa and Qiu teaches the ink-repellent member according to claim 1, wherein the fluorine compound has a main chain having a perfluoropolyether structure (Iwase, [0029]) and has a perfluoromethyl group (Iwase, [0120]) at an end thereof.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Iwase in view of Misawa and Qiu teaches the ink-repellent member according to claim 1, wherein the fluorine compound has at least one of a structure represented by .
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Misawa 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 Iwase in view of 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights