DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (7,605,469) in view of Yamamoto et al. (2011/0183526) and Suzuki et al. (2021/0245506).
Regarding claim 1, Johnston teaches a member for an inkjet head comprising at least
a base material (fig. 3, item 108),
a base material adhesion layer (fig. 3, item 176) and a functional layer in this order,
wherein the base material adhesion layer contains a Group 4 or Group 5 element (col. 3, lines 54, tantalum), a nitrogen element and an oxygen element (cols. 4-5, lines 64-30).
Johnston does not teach wherein an atomic concentration (atm%) of the oxygen element on a surface of the base material adhesion layer on a functional layer side where the functional layer is provided is higher than an atomic concentration (atm%) thereof inside the base material adhesion layer. Yamamoto teaches this (Yamamoto, see figs. 13-15, Note that the oxygen concentration within the adhesion layer G/F is increased at a surface portion G on top of which a next functional layer is to be deposited). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesion layer of Johnston with a larger concentration of oxygen on the surface, as disclosed by Yamamoto, because doing so would allow for increased adhesion properties between the adhesion layer and the functional layer while allowing for maintained insulation in the interior of the adhesion layer.
Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki does not teach wherein the base material, adhesion layer and functional layer form a nozzle plate. Suzuki teaches this (Suzuki, [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a nozzle plate, as disclosed by Suzuki, with the layers disclosed by Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki because doing so would amount to applying a known composition of a layered structure to a known layered structure to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 1, wherein the Group 5 element contained in the base material adhesion layer is tantalum (Ta) (Johnston, col. 3, lines 54).
Regarding claim 3, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 1, wherein a value of a ratio of an atomic concentration (atm%) of the nitrogen element and an atomic concentration (atm%) of the Group 4 or Group 5 element inside the base material adhesion layer satisfies Formula (I) below: Formula (I): 0. 3 ≤Atomic Concentration of Nitrogen Element /Atomic Concentration of Group 4 or Group 5 Element ≤ 1 (Johnston, col. 5, lines 2-5, Note that the atomic concentrations of tantalum and nitrogen in TaN are equal, i.e., ≤ 1).
Regarding claim 4, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to 3 claim 1, wherein the base material adhesion layer has a peak derived from Ta N in X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurement (Johnston, Examiner maintains that, given the elemental composition of the adhesive layer disclosed by Johnston, this limitation is necessarily met).
Regarding claim 5, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 1, wherein the base material adhesion layer has a thickness within a range of 1 to 1,500 nm (Johnston, cols. 4-5, lines 64-1).
Regarding claim 12, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 1, wherein the base material is formed of stainless steel (Suzuki, [0118]).
Claim(s) 6-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusaka et al. (2019/0023051).
Regarding claim 6, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 1. Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki does not teach wherein the functional layer includes a liquid repellent layer containing a fluorine (F) containing-coupling agent. Kusaka teaches this (Kusaka, [0217], [0244]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhesion layer disclosed by Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki to the nozzle plate and ink-repellent layer disclosed by Kusaka because doing so would amount to adding a known adhesion layer to a known device in need of an adhesion layer to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 1. Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki does not teach wherein the functional layer includes a liquid repellent layer containing a fluorine (F) containing-coupling agent, and an underlayer serving as a base of the liquid repellent layer. Kusaka teaches a fluorine based liquid repellent latyer (Kusaka, [0217]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhesion layer disclosed by Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki to the nozzle plate and ink-repellent layer disclosed by Kusaka because doing so would amount to adding a known adhesion layer to a known device in need of an adhesion layer to yield predictable results. Regarding the underlayer, note that any liquid repellent layer can be defined in two parts as an underlayer and an overlayer.
Regarding claim 8, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki and Kusaka teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 7, wherein the underlayer is a layer containing at least an inorganic oxide or an oxide containing carbon (C) (Kusaka, [0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki and Kusaka teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 8, wherein the underlayer is made of a silane coupling agent containing carbon and oxygen (Kusaka, [0238]-[0239]).
Regarding claim 11, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 10, wherein the silane coupling agent contained in the underlayer has a molecular structure having reactive functional groups at both ends and including a hydrocarbon chain and a benzene ring at a middle portion (Kusaka, [0244], Note that a silane coupling agent meets the limitations).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (2022/0105727).
Regarding claim 9, Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki and Kusaka teaches the member for an inkjet head according to claim 8. Johnston in view of Yamamoto and Suzuki and Kusaka does not teach wherein the underlayer contains an oxide made of at least carbon (C), silicon (Si) and oxygen (O). Sato teaches wherein a fluorine-based liquid repellent layer contains the above (Sato, [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a liquid-repellent layer containing the recited elements because doing so would amount to applying a known liquid-repellent layer composition to a known liquid-repellent layer to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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