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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al. (2018/0312971) (hereinafter Fukumoto et al.) in view of Nakakubo (2018/0154635) (hereinafter Nakakubo) and Kitawada (JP 2018051767) (hereinafter Kitawada).
Regarding Claim 1, Fukumoto et al. teaches a liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0021] comprising: that has at least a structure including an ejection orifice plate (117, Fig. 1G) having an ejection orifice (101, Fig. 1G) for ejecting a liquid [Paragraphs 0022-0023]; a substrate (131, Fig. 1G) provided with an energy generating element (107, Fig, 1G) for generating energy for ejecting the liquid [Paragraphs 0022-0023]; a pressure chamber (102, Fig. 1G) where pressure generated by the energy generating element (107) acts on the liquid [Paragraphs 0025].
Fukumoto et al. further teaches a first protective film (121, Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to further teach a first protective film formed continuously from a surface of the ejection orifice plate to an inner wall surface of the pressure chamber through an inner wall surface of the ejection orifice; and a second protective film formed at least partially on the first protective film, wherein the first protective is formed on the substrate overlapping the ejection orifice as viewed from a lamination direction of the ejection orifice plate and the substrate, and wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film is smaller than a pure water contact angle of the second protective film.
Nakakubo teaches a first protective film formed continuously from a surface of the ejection orifice plate to an inner wall surface of the pressure chamber through an inner wall surface of the ejection orifice [Paragraph 0022], wherein the first protective film is formed on the substrate overlapping the ejection orifice as viewed from a lamination direction of the ejection orifice plate and the substrate [Paragraph 0022 and Figs. 1A-1B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first protective film formed continuously from a surface of the ejection orifice plate to an inner wall surface of the pressure chamber through an inner wall surface of the ejection orifice, wherein the first protective film is formed on the substrate overlapping the ejection orifice as viewed from a lamination direction of the ejection orifice plate and the substrate as taught by Fukumoto et al. modified by Nakakubo for the purposes of protecting a flow path [Nakakubo, Paragraph 0022].
Nakakubo fails to teach a second protective film formed at least partially on the first protective film, and wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film is smaller than a pure water contact angle of the second protective film.
Kitawada teaches a second protective film formed at least partially on the first protective film, and wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film is smaller than a pure water contact angle of the second protective film [Description of Embodiments].
Kitawada fails to explicitly teach a water contact angle of a first protective film. However, Kitawada teaches the first protective film (29, Fig. 3) is made of a tantalum oxide, which has a water contact angle of 50˚C [see the attached article “Growth and characteristics of tantalum oxide thin films deposited using thermionic vacuum arch technology”, III., A. Surface energy evaluation].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second protective film formed at least partially on the first protective film, and wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film is smaller than a pure water contact angle of the second protective film as taught by Fukumoto modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada for the purposes of protecting an orifice plate from ink [Kitawada, Description of Embodiments].
Regarding Claim 2, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G) wherein the ejection orifice (101, Fig. 1G) and the substrate (131, Fig. 1G) are directly bonded [Paragraphs 0022-0023].
Regarding Claim 3, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G) [Paragraphs 0021-0026].
Fukumoto et al. further teaches a first protective film (121, Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to further teach wherein a first protective film is formed on the surface of the ejection orifice plate where the ejection plate where the ejection orifice is formed.
Nakakubo teaches a first protective film [Paragraph 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first protective film as taught by Fukumoto et al. modified by Nakakubo for the purposes of protecting a communication path [Nakakubo, Paragraph 0022].
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein a first protective film is formed on the surface of the ejection orifice plate where the ejection plate where the ejection orifice is formed.
Kitawada teaches wherein a first protective film is formed on the surface of the ejection orifice plate where the ejection plate where the ejection orifice is formed [Description of Embodiments, see Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first protective film is formed on the surface of the ejection orifice plate where the ejection plate where the ejection orifice is formed as taught by Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada for the purposes of ensuring the second protective film isn’t easily peeled off [Kitawada, Description of Embodiments].
Regarding Claim 4, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G)
[Paragraphs 0021-0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to teach wherein a thickness of the first protective film is 30 nm or more.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein a thickness of the first protective film is 30 nm or more.
Kitawada fails to teach wherein a thickness of the first protective film is 30 nm or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein a thickness of the first protective film is 30 nm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to combine the teachings of Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada with the holdings of In re Aller is for the purposes of preventing corrosion by ink [Fukumoto et al., Paragraph 0048].
Regarding Claim 5, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G)
[Paragraphs 0021-0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to teach wherein a thickness of the second protective film is 30 nm or more.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein a thickness of the second protective film is 30 nm or more.
Kitawada fails to teach wherein a thickness of the second protective film is 30 nm or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein a thickness of the second protective film is 30 nm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to combine the teachings of Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada with the holdings of In re Aller is for the purposes of preventing corrosion by ink [Fukumoto et al., Paragraph 0048].
Regarding Claim 6, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G)
[Paragraphs 0021-0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to teach wherein a combined thickness of the first protective film and the second protective film is 60 nm to 300 nm.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein a combined thickness of the first protective film and the second protective film is 60 nm to 300 nm.
Kitawada fails to teach wherein a combined thickness of the first protective film and the second protective film is 60 nm to 300 nm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein a combined thickness of the first protective film and the second protective film is 60 nm to 300 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to combine the teachings of Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada with the holdings of In re Aller is for the purposes of preventing corrosion by ink [Fukumoto et al., Paragraph 0048].
Regarding Claim 7, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G), further comprising first and second individual communication holes (112a, 112b, Fig. 1G) connecting to the pressure chamber (102, Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0023].
Regarding Claim 8, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G), further comprising: a first common flow path (113a, Fig. 1G) communicating with the pressure chamber (102) through a first individual communication hole (112a) [Paragraph 0023]; and a second common flow path (113b, Fig. 1G) communicating with the pressure chamber (102) through a second individual communication hole (113b) [Paragraph 0023].
Regarding Claim 9, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G), wherein the first protective film (121, Fig. 1G) is formed on an inner wall of the first individual communication hole (112a) or an inner wall of the second individual communication hole (112b) [see Fig. 1G].
Regarding Claim 10, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G), wherein the first protective film (121) is formed on an inner wall of the first common flow path (113a) or an inner wall of the second common flow path (113b) [see Fig. 1G].
Regarding 11, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G)
[Paragraphs 0021-0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to teach wherein the second protective film is formed on the first protective film formed on the surface of the ejection orifice plate.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein the second protective film is formed on the first protective film formed on the surface of the ejection orifice plate.
Kitawada teaches wherein the second protective film is formed on the first protective film formed on the surface of the ejection orifice plate [Description of Embodiments].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first protective film formed continuously from a surface of the ejection orifice plate to an inner wall surface of the pressure chamber through an inner wall surface of the ejection orifice, wherein the first protective film is formed on the substrate overlapping the ejection orifice as viewed from a lamination direction of the ejection orifice plate and the substrate as taught by Fukumoto et al. modified by Nakakubo for the purposes of protecting a flow path [Kitawada, Paragraph 0022].
Regarding Claim 15, Fukumoto et al. teaches wherein the first protective film (121) contains titanium oxide [Paragraph 0032].
Regarding 16, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G)
[Paragraphs 0021-0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to teach wherein the second protective film contains titanium oxide.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein the second protective film contains titanium oxide.
Kitawada fails to teach wherein the second protective film contains titanium oxide.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the second protective film contains titanium oxide, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation to combine the teachings of Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada with the holdings of In re Leshin is for the purposes of preventing corrosion by ink [Fukumoto et al., Paragraph 0048].
Regarding Claim 17, Fukumoto et al. teaches a liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0021].
Fukumoto et al. further teaches a first protective film (121, Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to further teach wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film 40˚ or less.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film 40˚ or less.
Kitawada fails to explicitly teach wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film 40˚ or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein a pure water contact angle of the first protective film 40˚ or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to combine the teachings of Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada with the holdings of In re Aller is for the purposes of preventing corrosion by ink [Fukumoto et al., Paragraph 0048].
Regarding Claim 18, Fukumoto et al. teaches a liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0021].
Fukumoto et al. further teaches a first protective film (121, Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to further teach wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more.
Kitawada teaches wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more as taught by Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada for the purposes of ensuring the second protective film isn’t easily peeled off [Kitawada, Description of Embodiments].
Regarding Claim 19, Fukumoto et al. teaches a liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0021].
Fukumoto et al. further teaches a first protective film (121, Fig. 1G) [Paragraph 0026].
Fukumoto et al. fails to further teach wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more.
Nakakubo fails to teach wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more.
Kitawada teaches wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a pure water contact angle of the second protective film 70˚ or more as taught by Fukumoto as modified by Nakakubo and Kitawada for the purposes of ensuring the second protective film isn’t easily peeled off [Kitawada, Description of Embodiments].
Regarding Claim 20, Fukumoto et al. teaches the liquid ejection head (see Fig. 1G), further comprising a flow path forming member (see Fig. 1G) having a flow path (115a, 115b, Fig. 1G) communicating with the ejection orifice (101, Fig. 1G), wherein the ejection orifice plate (117, Fig. 1G) and the substrate (131, Fig. 1G) are joined through the flow path forming member (see Fig. 1G) [Paragraphs 0021-0023].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 12 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection head that includes arranging a second protective film on a first protective film, which is on the inner wall of a first common flow path or on an inner wall of second common flow path. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 13-14 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection head that includes a junction substrate with a liquid flow path communicating with a first or second common flow, wherein there is a direct connection between a substrate and the junction substrate, and a first protective film is on a junction surface where the substrate and the junction substrate meet. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims (insert claim numbers) is the inclusion of the limitation (insert the apparatus) that includes (insert the limitation). It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, EST.
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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853