DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “wherein an equivalent of a functional group of the epoxy resin in the epoxy resin mixture is 100 or more and 200 or less…” It is not understood what this is intended to mean. Further, it would seem units are missing from the 100-200 range. Clarification is required.
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (2010/0219382) in view of Hawkins et al. (4,601,777).
Regarding claim 1, Abe teaches an epoxy resin mixture ([0095], jER828) and a powder curing agent ([0095], PN23J), wherein the epoxy resin mixture contains an epoxy resin that is liquid at normal temperature and a coumarone resin ([0061]) that is dissolvable in the epoxy resin (note that this is the case), wherein a weight average molecular weight of the epoxy resin mixture is 300 or more and 600 or less (note that JER828 meets the limitation).
Abe does not teach a liquid ejection head comprising: a recording element substrate configured to eject a liquid; a supporting member configured to support the recording element substrate and including a supply channel configured to supply a liquid to the recording element substrate; and
a channel member configured to supply a liquid to the supply channel, wherein at least one bonding surface between two members of any of the recording element substrate, the supporting member, and the channel member is made of an epoxy resin composition. Hawkins teaches this (Hawkins, col. 11, lines 30-54, see figs. 4, 5, Note that item 28 has a recording element substrate and a supporting member supporting the recording element substrate and channel member 29, and note that the recording element substrate and the channel member are bonded with thermosetting epoxy resin). 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 epoxy resin adhesive mixture disclosed by Abe as the thermosetting curable mixture disclosed by Hawkins because doing so would amount to combining a known adhesive with a known structure bonded with adhesive to yield predictable results. Further, because Abe’s epoxy resin was effective for bonding surfaces having electrical components, it would have been effective for bonding the recording element substrate of Hawkins, which has a multitude of electrodes and heaters on its surface.
Upon combination of Hawkins with Abe, the resultant device would meet the limitation: wherein the liquid ejection head contains a cured substance of an adhesive agent containing the epoxy resin composition
Regarding claim 2, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein an equivalent of a functional group of the epoxy resin in the epoxy resin mixture is 100 or more and 200 or less (Abe, Note that jER828 meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 2. Regarding claim 2, Abe in view of Hawkins does not teach wherein a content of the coumarone resin contained in the epoxy resin mixture is 10 parts by mass or more and 50 parts by mass or less to 100 parts by mass of the epoxy resin. However, MPEP 2144.05 states that, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, all the conditions are present except for an amount coumarone resin in the mixture. This is appears to have been arrived upon by routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
Regarding claim 4, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 3, wherein a hydroxyl value (mg KOH/g) of the coumarone resin is 50 or less (Abe, [0061], Note that coumarone-indene resins have hydroxyl values of approximately 32).
Regarding claim 5, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein a softening point of a powder curing agent contained in the epoxy resin composition is 80°C or higher and 100°C or lower (Abe, [0095], Note that PN23J meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 5, wherein a content of the powder curing agent contained in the epoxy resin composition is 40 parts by mass or more and 65 parts by mass or less to 100 parts by mass of the epoxy resin (Abe, [0095], Note the 30 to 100).
While Abe in view of Hawkins does not expressly teach the claimed range, MPEP 2144.05 states that, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, all the conditions are present except for an amount of the powder during agent, which is off by 10%. This is appears to have been arrived upon by routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
Regarding claim 7, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 6, wherein the powder curing agent is an amine-series curing agent (Abe, Note that PN23J meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 8, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 7, wherein an average particle diameter of the powder curing agent is 70 nm or less (Abe, Note that PN23J meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Abe in view of Hawkins teaches the liquid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the epoxy resin composition contains a silane coupling agent (Abe, Note that jER828 meets the limitation).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Hawkins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato (2023/0212443).
Regarding claim 21, Abe in view of Hawkins does not teach the limitations of the claims. Regarding the functional group limitation see 112 rejection. Regarding the coumarone content limitation, MPEP 2144.05 states that, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, all the conditions are present except for a specific content range for the coumarone resin. This is appears to have been arrived upon by routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
Regarding the limitations directed to the curing agent, Kato teaches wherein PN23j (cited above) and EH-5030S are obvious variants. It would have been obvious to use EH-5030S as a curing agent instead of PN23J because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known curing agent for another to obtain predictable results. EH-5030S meets the softening point limitation.
Regarding the curing agent content limitation, MPEP 2144.05 states that, where the general conditions of a claimed invention are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, Abe teaches wherein the curing agent is present at 30 parts while the claim required 40 parts. All other conditions are present This is appears to have been arrived upon by routine experimentation and thus is not inventive
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hawkins.
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
Prosecution Insights