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.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “under” in claims 1 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The terms listed are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph 0046 of the specification notes that terms denoting position relative to another part depend on the particular orientation of the device. Because a specific orientation is not denoted in the claim, the relative terms are therefore indefinite.
Claims 2-16 are further rejected for their dependencies on claim 1, and as they fail to remedy the deficiencies of independent claim 1.
In light of the specification and drawings, the claims will be interpreted for further examination as best understood by the examiner.
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) 1-4, 9-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 20170361610 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hara, in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20120098897 A1), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki 897.
Regarding claim 1, Hara teaches an inkjet head (recording head 10; Fig. 2) comprising:
a nozzle which ejects ink (nozzle portion 42; Fig. 2, 4);
a nozzle plate adjacent to the nozzle and defining the nozzle (nozzle plate 43; Fig. 2, 4), the nozzle plate including: a side surface (first nozzle portion 45; Fig. 4);
a protective layer disposed under the nozzle plate (layer 48a; Fig. 4), the protective layer including: a side surface (portion of Fig. 4 annotated below);
a first coating layer disposed on the side surface of the nozzle plate and the side surface of the protective layer (layer 48b or combined layer 48b/48c; Fig. 4), the first coating layer including: a rear surface and a side surface (portion of Fig. 4 annotated below);
a liquid-repellent layer (liquid repellent film 47; Fig. 4) disposed on the rear surface of the first coating layer (“liquid repellent film 47 is formed on the nozzle forming face 43a of the nozzle plate 43”; at para. 0045; from Fig. 4, liquid repellent film 47 is on the rear surface side of layers 48b and/or combined layers 48b/48c; Fig. 4) and the side surface of the first coating layer (“there also is a case in which the liquid repellent film 47 partially remains also in the inner periphery of the nozzle portion 42”; at para. 0047; therefore, liquid repellent film 47 is on the side surface side of layers 48b and/or combined layers 48b/48c),
and the first coating layer covers the protective layer (at para. 0046; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hara does not teach, as best understood according to the present invention, a step defined between the nozzle plate and the protective layer, the step being on the “under” side, with the first coating layer covering the step.
Suzuki 897 teaches a liquid ejection head (inkjet head 1; Fig. 1) wherein a protective layer is “under” a nozzle plate such that a step is further defined between the nozzle plate and the protective layer on the “under” side (recess 60C; Fig. 2), with respect to the +Z direction indicating the lower direction toward the “bottom” surface where ink is ejected.
A combination of having the protective layer covering the nozzle plate wherein a step between the nozzle plate is defined on the “under” side of the nozzle plate as taught by Suzuki 897 and having the first coating layer covering the entire protective layer as taught by Hara would result in the first coating layer covering a step defined between the nozzle plate and the protective layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first coating later as covering a step defined between the nozzle plate and the protective layer where the step is disposed to be on the “under” side. This would have been done for the purpose of improving alkali or acid resistance and increasing protection as taught by Hara (at para. 0046) and fixing abnormalities and suppressing degradation of print quality as taught by Suzuki 897 (at para. 0096).
Regarding claim 2, Hara further teaches the inkjet head as further comprising: a piezoelectric plate disposed on the nozzle plate (piezoelectric element 37; Fig. 2), and the first coating layer covering the entire protective layer (layer 48b covers entirety of layer 48a by overlapping; at para. 0046; Fig. 4), however Hara does not teach wherein the first coating layer extends from a lower portion of the protective layer to a height where an upper surface of the piezoelectric plate is disposed.
Suzuki 897 further teaches wherein the protective layer is formed continuously so as to cover the nozzle plate and a piezoelectric plate adhered to the nozzle plate (at para. 0037, 0037; Fig. 2).
A combination of having the protective layer continuously covering the nozzle plate and piezoelectric plate as taught by Suzuki 897 and having the first coating layer covering the entire protective layer as taught by Hara would result in the first coating layer extending from a lower portion of the protective layer to a height where an upper surface of the piezoelectric plate is disposed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first coating layer to extend from a lower portion of the protective layer to a height where an upper surface of the piezoelectric plate is disposed. This would have been done for the purpose of improving alkali or acid resistance and increasing protection as taught by Hara (at para. 0046) and protecting the entire inner chamber as taught by Suzuki 897 (at para. 0037).
Regarding claim 3, Hara further teaches wherein a second coating layer disposed between the first coating layer and the liquid-repellent layer, and contacting the liquid-repellent layer (layer 48c contacts liquid repellent film 47; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Hara further teaches wherein the nozzle plate includes an inclined portion having an inclined surface inclined in a direction away from the nozzle (“second nozzle portion 46 may be formed in a tapered shape in which an inner wall face is inclined so that an inner diameter thereof is enlarged from the downstream side (first nozzle portion 45 side) toward the upstream side (pressure chamber 41 side)”; at para. 0046), and
the second coating layer extends from a lower portion of the first coating layer to a height where the side surface of the nozzle plate disposed under the inclined portion is disposed (layer 48c extends up first nozzle portion 45; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Hara further teaches wherein the liquid-repellent layer contacts a rear surface of the second coating layer (liquid repellent film contacts layer 48c on ink ejection side; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Hara further teaches wherein the first coating layer includes an organic material, an inorganic material, and a metal material (as best understood by the examiner, the components of an organic material and metal material are present as an overall inorganic compound: oxygen as organic, tantalum as metal, therefore tantalum oxide as inorganic material; at para. 0045).
Regarding claim 11, Hara further teaches wherein the second coating layer includes an inorganic material (from silicon; at para. 0045).
Regarding claim 12, Hara further teaches wherein the second coating layer includes a polymer compound (“plasma polymerization silicone (PPSi) film of a silicon material (polyorganosiloxane including alkyl group)”; at para. 0045).
Regarding claim 14, Hara further teaches wherein a thickness of the first coating layer along a thickness direction perpendicular to a main plane extension direction of the first coating layer is about 500 nanometers or less (layer 48b is approximately several tens nm, adjusted to 12.5 nm in the embodiment; at para. 0046), and
a thickness of the second coating layer along the thickness direction is about 1000 nanometers or less (layer 48c is 500 nm; at para. 0046).
Regarding claim 16, Hara further teaches wherein the liquid-repellent layer contacts the rear surface of the first coating layer (first coating layer as combined layer 48b/48c contacts liquid repellent film 47; Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Suzuki 897 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saiba et al. (US 20180339517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Saiba.
Regarding claim 13, Hara further teaches wherein the liquid-repellent layer includes a hydrophobic material (trifluoro propyl trimethoxysilane; at para. 0045), however Hara does not disclose the hydrophobic material as having a water contact angle which is about 100 degrees or more and about 200 degrees or less.
Saiba teaches a liquid ejection head (recording head 3; Fig. 2) wherein a liquid-repellent layer (liquid repelling layer 40; Fig. 16) includes a hydrophobic material (fluororesin; at para. 0077), and the hydrophobic material has a water contact angle of 90 degrees or more with respect to the ink (at para. 0077). MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The claimed range of about 100 degrees or more and about 200 degrees or less lies inside the range of 90 degrees or more taught by Saiba.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the water contact angle of the hydrophobic material of the liquid-repellent layer to be about 100 degrees or more and about 200 degrees or less. This would have been done for the purpose of improving abrasion resistance of the liquid-repellent layer and suppress deterioration of the liquid-repellent layer as taught by Saiba (at para. 0025).
Further, the examiner notes the applicant discloses in specification paragraph 0047 that “about” may include ±30%, 20%, or 10% of the stated value. In other words, with “about” defined as such, the claim may extend the range to include 70, 80, or 90 degrees or more, in which case the claimed range would overlap with the range taught by Saiba.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Suzuki 897 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20210245506 A1), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki 506.
Regarding claim 15, Hara does not teach wherein a thickness of the liquid-repellent layer along a thickness direction perpendicular to a main plane extension direction of the liquid-repellent layer is about 20 nanometers or less.
Suzuki 506 demonstrates a liquid ejection head (inkjet head 1; Fig. 1) wherein a liquid-repellent layer is about 20 nanometers or less (5 nm; at para. 0194, 0259; 20 nm; at para. 0235).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the thickness of the liquid-repellent layer to be about 20 nanometers or less. This would have been done for the purpose of preventing unwanted adhesion of ink to the periphery of the nozzle and improving image quality as taught by Suzuki 509 (at para. 0007, 0042).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are further objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but they would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 5, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of “wherein the second coating layer extends from the lower portion of the protective layer to a height where the upper surface of the piezoelectric plate is disposed.” These limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, making claim 5, allowable over the prior art.
Specifically, prior art of record demonstrates wherein a second coating layer covers the lower portion of the protective layer and extends to at least a height of the nozzle plate, such as demonstrated by Hara as applied to claim 4 wherein the second coating layer extends up a side of the nozzle plate. However, prior art of record does not demonstrate wherein the second coating layer extends to a height where the upper surface of the piezoelectric plate is disposed.
Regarding claims 6-8, allowability is based on their dependencies on claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giasuddin et al. on Silica Nanoparticles teaches the hydrophobicity and water contact angle of trifluoro propyl trimethoxysilane, specifically that the water contact angle is greater than 160 degrees (pp. 4100, col. 1, Conclusions). Trifluoro propyl trimethoxysilane is the hydrophobic material used by Hara for the liquid-repellent layer, as applied to claim 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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 X 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.
01 September 2026
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights