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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2023-101508 was received on 18 July 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 June 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 20 June 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inamoto (US 4,609,427 A).
With regard to Claim 1, Inamoto discloses a liquid ejecting head (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Line 45; Abstract) comprising:
a nozzle configured to eject a liquid (Col. 14, Lines 1-13, ink discharging outlet 9-3; Figs. 7-9);
a first flow path member (dry film photoresist layer 5; Col. 11 Lines 62 to Col. 12 Line 69) that defines a portion of a flow path for supplying the liquid to the nozzle (Figs. 2-6);
a second flow path member (protective layer 3; Figs. 7-9; Col. 3, Line 65 to Col. 4, Line 32) that is bonded to the first flow path member (dry film photoresist layer 5; Col. 11 Lines 62 to Col. 12 Line 69; Cols. 13-14) to define a portion of the flow path and that is formed of a metal (Col. 3, Line 65 to Col. 4, Line 69); and
an adhesive (coupling agent layer 4; Figs. 2-6) that bonds the first flow path member and the second flow path member (Col. 4, Lines 13-63), wherein the adhesive contains a water-insoluble chelate compound (Col. 4, Lines 55-63).
Inamoto discloses a chelate compound, but does not explicitly disclose the chelate compound being water-insoluble. However, this feature is seen as an inherent feature of the compound itself, since the compound is disclosed as claimed, in order to function as intended, as further evidenced by Dao (¶0029, chelates are insoluble in water).
With regard to Claim 4, Inamoto further discloses wherein the adhesive (coupling agent layer 4) contains a multifunctional epoxy resin having two or more epoxy groups as a main agent (Table 1-1), and at least one of a curing accelerator or a curing agent (Col. 4, Line 46-69, photosensitive resin).
With regard to Claim 8, Inamoto further discloses wherein the second flow path member is an electroformed filter formed of a metal including at least one of nickel or palladium (Col. 3, Line 67 to Col. 4, Line 11).
With regard to Claim 9, Inamoto further discloses wherein the first flow path member is formed of a thermosetting resin (Col. 13, Lines 51-64; Figs. 3-7), and the liquid is supplied to the nozzle from the flow path in the first flow path member through the electroformed filter (Figs. 3-7).
With regard to Claim 10, Inamoto further discloses wherein the liquid is an ultraviolet curable ink or a solvent-based ink (Col. 15, Lines 14-18, solvent-based ink may be employed).
With regard to Claim 11, Inamoto further discloses a liquid ejecting apparatus (Abstract) comprising: the liquid ejecting head according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above); and a liquid storage unit that stores a liquid to be supplied to the liquid ejecting head (Fig. 7, Col. 13, Line 64 to Col. 14, Line 3).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamoto, in view of Hirano et al. (US PGPub 2018/0299774 A1), hereinafter Hirano.
With regard to Claim 2, Inamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the chelate compound is an oil-soluble benzotriazole.
The secondary reference of Hirano discloses wherein the chelate compound is an oil-soluble benzotriazole (¶0070, benzotriazole used as an adhesion promoter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the compound of Hirano, with the adhesive of Inamoto, in order to promote better adhesion, as taught by Hirano (¶0070).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamoto, in view of Hirano, and further in view of Uesugi (JP 2017-171984 A).
With regard to Claim 3, Inamoto-Hirano does not explicitly disclose wherein the chelate compound is 5-carboxybenzotriazole.
The tertiary reference of Uesugi discloses wherein the chelate compound is 5-carboxybenzotriazole (¶0056-0059).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the compound of Uesugi, with the combination of Inamoto-Hirano, in order to prevent oxidation, as taught by Uesugi (¶0006).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inamoto, in view of Tsumura et al. (US PGPub 2025/0051616 A1), hereinafter Tsumura.
With regard to Claim 5, Inamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the chelate compound with respect to the adhesive is 0.56% by mass or more.
The secondary reference of Tsumura discloses wherein a content of the chelate compound with respect to the adhesive is 0.56% by mass or more (¶0225).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the content of chelate compound of Tsumura, with the liquid ejecting head of Inamoto, in order to have a high effect of inactivation a surface of metal, as taught by Tsumura (¶0225).
With regard to Claim 6, Inamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the chelate compound with respect to the adhesive is 3.51% by mass or less.
The secondary reference of Tsumura discloses wherein a content of the chelate compound with respect to the adhesive is 3.51% by mass or less (¶0225).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the content of chelate compound of Tsumura, with the liquid ejecting head of Inamoto, in order to have a high effect of inactivation a surface of metal, as taught by Tsumura (¶0225).
With regard to Claim 7, Inamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the chelate compound with respect to the adhesive is 0.56% by mass or more and 3.51% by mass or less.
The secondary reference of Tsumura discloses wherein a content of the chelate compound with respect to the adhesive is 0.56% by mass or more and 3.51% by mass or less (¶0225).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the content of chelate compound of Tsumura, with the liquid ejecting head of Inamoto, in order to have a high effect of inactivation a surface of metal, as taught by Tsumura (¶0225).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dao (US PGPub 2021/0316047 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853