DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/16/2026.
Further, Applicant has failed to elect from the embodiments listed on page 4 of the Requirement for Election of Species. Election 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 Hirota (2019/0270307) in view of Murai et al. (2018/0039179) and Iida et al. (2023/0227651).
Regarding claim 1, Hirota teaches a fluid ejection head, comprising:
a first member ([0099], channel substrate 21);
a second member ([0099], reservoir forming member 25);
a resin layer ([0099], epoxy resin) that bonds the first member and the second member together ([0099]),
and a flow channel (fig. 4A, item 47) to which at least part of the resin layer is exposed (see fig. 4A, note that the epoxy resin binding items 21 and 25 is exposed to the flow channel 47). Hirota does not teach the specific components of the epoxy resin layer.
Murai teaches a resin layer including a cured product of a resin composition that includes
(A) an epoxy resin ([0057], triglycydil p-aminophenol),
(B) an episulfide resin ([0062], thiirane, ethylene sulfide),
(C) a polythiol compound ([0060], dipentaerythritol hexakis(3-ethyl-3-oxetanylmethyl)ether). 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 mixture disclosed by Murai as the adhesive epoxy binder disclosed by Hirota because doing so would amount to combining a known epoxy formulation with a device using an epoxy to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Hirota does not disclose the formulation of its epoxy mixture, it would have been obvious to look to Murai for such details.
Hirota In view of Murai does not teach (D) at least one of hydrophobic titanium oxide or hydrophobic alumina. Iida teaches this (Iida, [0094]-[0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the hydrophobic filler disclosed by Iida to the adhesive disclosed by Hirota in view of Murai because doing so would increase resistance to water damage to the resin layer while also providing mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 2, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the (A) epoxy resin includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyglycidyl ether compound of a polyvalent phenol, a glycidylamino group-containing epoxy compound, and a polyglycidyl ether compound of dicyclopentadiene dimethanol (Murai, [0057], triglycydil p-aminophenol).
Regarding claim 3 Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the (B) episulfide resin includes an aromatic ring, or an alicyclic structure, or both (Murai, [0062], thiirane, ethylene sulfide, Note that ethylene sulfide includes both).
Regarding claim 4, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the (C) polythiol compound includes four or more thiol groups (Murai, [0060], Note that dipentaerythritol hexakis(3-ethyl-3-oxetanylmethyl)ether) meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein the (D) at least one of hydrophobic titanium oxide or hydrophobic alumina includes an alkylsilane moiety (Iida, [0094], note that titanium oxide meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection head according to claim 1, wherein an amount of the (D) at least one of hydrophobic titanium oxide or hydrophobic alumina in the resin layer is 0.1 parts by mass or greater and 20.0 parts by mass or less relative to 100.0 parts by mass of a sum of an amount of the (A) epoxy resin, an amount of the (B) episulfide resin, and an amount of the (C) polythiol compound in the resin layer (Iida, [0096]).
Regarding claim 7, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection assembly, comprising: the fluid ejection head according to claim 1; and
at least one selected from the group consisting of a head tank configured to store a fluid to be supplied to the fluid ejection head, a carriage (Hirota, fig. 1, item 3) on which the fluid ejection head is mounted, a supply mechanism configured to supply a fluid to the fluid ejection head, a maintenance recovery mechanism configured to perform maintenance and recovery of the fluid ejection head, and a main-scanning moving mechanism configured to move the fluid ejection head in a main-scanning direction.
Regarding claim 8, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection assembly according to claim 7, wherein the fluid ejection head is mounted as an integrated assembly with the at least one selected from the group consisting of the head tank, the carriage (Hirota, fig. 1), the supply mechanism, the maintenance recovery mechanism, and the main-scanning moving mechanism.
Regarding claim 9, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection device according to claim 1 comprising: the fluid ejection head according to claim 1; and a controller (Hirota, [0063]).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Murai and Iida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshiba (2016/0139522).
Regarding claim 12, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection device according to claim 1. Hirota in view of Murai and Iida does not teach relative masses of a hydrophobization agent and hydrophobic particles. Yoshiba teaches this (Yoshiba, [0263, Note that the agent is present in 15% of the particle mass). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the hydrophobic particles of Hirota in view of Murai and Iida in the mass ratio disclosed by Yoshiba because doing so would amount to applying a known mass ratio of hydrophobization agent to particles to be hydrophobized to known hydrophobic particles to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Iida does not give any specifics about the manufacture of its particles, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to look to Yoshiba for such a disclosure.
Furthermore, it should be noted that according to MPEP2144.05, 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 through routine experimentation. Here, all of the claimed general conditions are present, and a range ratios of masses of particles to agent have been claimed, but this range would appear to have been arrived at through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota in view of Murai and Iida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada (2013/0130174).
Regarding claim 13, Hirota in view of Murai and Iida teaches the fluid ejection device according to claim 1. Hirota in view of Murai and Iida does not teach particle diameters of hydrophobic particles. Yamada teaches this (Yamada, [0144]-[0145]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the hydrophobic particles of Hirota in view of Murai and Iida with the average diameter disclosed by Yamada because doing so would amount to applying a known particle diameter to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Iida does not give any specifics about the diameter of its particles, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to look to Yamada for such a disclosure.
Furthermore, it should be noted that according to MPEP2144.05, 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 through routine experimentation. Here, all of the claimed general conditions are present, and a range diameters of particles have been claimed, but this range would appear to have been arrived at through routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Iida aims to improve the ability to check the coating state of a polyorganosiloxane composition, not an interface control material, as intended by the claim, and thus the Iida is improperly combined with Hirota in view of Murai. Examiner maintains the combination is proper. Iida is directed to a curable polyorganosiloxane adhesive in which a filler of aluminum oxide or titanium oxide surface treated by a hydrophoboicity imparting agent can be present. Hirota in view of Murai teaches an epoxy resin adhesive that makes contact with ink. Thus, while there are certain differences, both Iida and Hirota in view of Murai teach adhesives subjected to contact with liquids, and it is maintained that to add hydrophobic fillers of the type disclosed by Iida to any such adhesives so as to prevent liquid from compromising the properties of the adhesive would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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