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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki (CN 201810245608).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki teaches a thermal print head (101 figs.1-7,13-17) comprising:
a heat generating resistor (4 figs.3-7);
a wiring layer (electrode 3 including 35,31 figs.3-7) that is connected to the heat generating resistor (4);
a protective layer (5,6 figs.3-7. 6 includes layers 61-63 in figs.4-7) that covers the heat generating resistor (4) and the wiring layer (35,31), the protective layer being an insulating layer to which diamond particles are added (figs.4-7,13-17; paragraphs 0047,0049,0051,0058,0064,0069,0070 teaches 62 and 63 of 6 are formed of diamond particles/DLC/ta-C).
Regarding claim 3, Aoki further teaches wherein a content of the diamond particles in the protective layer is 1 volume percent or more and 90 volume percent or less (paragraphs 0047,0048 teaches different diamond contents including 45% to 85%, 25%, and also 2.5-3.3,2.2,3.0,3.1-3.3 gram per cubic cm volume of diamond).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (CN 201810245608).
Regarding claim 2, Aoki further teaches the use of different concentrations of diamond and different thickness of the protective layer/s (paragraphs 0045,0047,0048, 0054).
Aoki does not explicitly teach wherein a median diameter of the diamond particles is 0.5 times or less as large as a thickness of the protective layer.
However, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use diamond particle with such mean diameter based on the required feature and size of protective layer in the thermal head, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Aoki further teaches wherein a content of the diamond particles in the protective layer is 1 volume percent or more and 90 volume percent or less (paragraphs 0047,0048 teaches different diamond contents including 45% to 85%, 25%, and also 2.5-3.3,2.2,3.0,3.1-3.3 gram per cubic cm volume of diamond).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (CN 201810245608) in view of Imai (JP 2004358507).
Regarding claims 5-7, Aoki substantially teaches the claimed invention including the protective layer being an insulating layer to which diamond particles are added (paragraphs 0047,0049,0051, 0058, 0064, 0069,0070).
Aoki does not explicitly teach wherein the diamond particles are industrial diamond powders.
However, Imai teaches similar thermal print head (figs.1,8) including a protective layer (13) to which diamond particles are added, and wherein the diamond particles are industrial diamond powders (paragraphs 0021,0023). Imai further teaches the protective layer (13) that covers a heat generating resistor (12) and wiring layer (14,15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use diamond powder in the protective layer of Aoki based on the teachings of Imai for instance to facilitate manufacturing steps of the protective layer/s.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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 at (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 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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853