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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventive Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-12 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.
These claims will be examined as best understood in view of the questions of scope.
Regarding claims 1 and 7:
These claims require steps of manufacturing in which certain coating films are disposed “under” another coating film. For example, claim 1 requires the third coating film to be “disposed under the second coating film”. Similarly, in claim 7, the fourth coating film is “under the third coating film”.
However, this language fails to clearly describe the configuration of coating films relative to each other. Specifically, in claim 1, is the third coating film “under” the second coating film in that it has been deposited before the second coating film? Or, is the third coating film “under” the second coating film in that it is disposed under the second coating film in operation (i.e. deposited after)? Similar questions apply to each recitation of the term “under”.
The specification fails to clarify, as the term “under” is specifically indicated as a relative term that can be interpreted in terms of manufacture (deposited before) or operation (deposited after: see paragraph 57).
Because the different interpretations require very different coating configurations, an artisan would not be able to determine the point of infringement in these claims.
Regarding claims 2-12:
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims, and therefore also fail to meet the requirements of this statute.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2012/0098897 A1) in view of Saiba et al. (US 2018/0339517 A1) and Yoshino (JP H0976511A).
The absence of a claim rejection is not an indication of allowability over the cited prior art, unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1:
Suzuki discloses a method of manufacturing an inkjet head, the method comprising:
forming a preliminary nozzle plate (20: Fig. 7B) including an organic material (paragraph 25);
forming a nozzle plate (20) including a plurality of nozzles (21) formed by processing the preliminary nozzle plate using a laser (LL: paragraph 65 & Fig. 7C);
forming a piezoelectric plate (piezoelectric member 13) on the nozzle plate (paragraph 34 & Fig. 7);
forming a protection film (protection film 60) on a lower surface of the nozzle plate (Fig. 2);
Suzuki does not expressly disclose the various claimed coating films.
However, Saiba et al. disclose a method of manufacturing an inkjet head that is able to suppress deterioration of a liquid repelling layer that prevents ink adherence to the nozzle surface, the method comprising the steps of:
forming a protection film (protection layer 39) with a first coating film (“oxide film” of protection layer 39) on a lower surface of the nozzle plate (paragraph 85 & Fig. 3) and a second coating film (“tantalum oxide film” of protection layer 39) covering the first coating film and including a material different from the first coating film (paragraph 85 & Fig. 3); and
forming a third coating film (liquid repelling layer 40) including a material different from the first and second coating films (paragraph 78 & Fig. 3) and disposed under the second coating film (Fig. 3).
Moreover, Yoshino discloses a method of manufacturing an inkjet head comprising the step of forming a fourth coating film (one of intermediate layer 8 and hard carbon film 7: Fig. 6), the fourth coating film being disposed under a third coating film (liquid-repellent coating 4: Fig. 6), so as to provide protection for the liquid repellent coating from wiping during cleaning (paragraph 32).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki’s method to form the various coating films taught by Saiba et al., so as to provide a liquid repellent film. It would have been further obvious to include a fourth coating, such as taught by Yoshino, so as to provide protection for the liquid repellent coating.
Regarding claim 2:
Suzuki’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Suzuki also discloses that the protection film is formed to entirely cover an inner surface of the nozzle plate exposed by each of the nozzles (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, in Suzuki’s modified method, the first film is formed to entirely cover the inner surface of the nozzle plate.
Regarding claim 3:
Suzuki’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Suzuki also discloses that the protection film is formed to entirely cover a side surface of the piezoelectric plate (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, in Suzuki’s modified method, the second film is formed to entirely cover the side surface of piezoelectric plate.
Regarding claim 5:
Suzuki’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Suzuki also discloses that the preliminary nozzle plate may include polyimide (paragraph 25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0361610 A1 discloses a nozzle plate comprising a base film (48) having an SiOx layer (48a), a TaOx layer (48b), and a PPSi layer (48c), wherein an ink repellent layer (47) if formed to cover the base layer (Fig. 4).
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights