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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on a Form PTO 1449 have been considered.
Specification
The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections
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 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 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagatoya et al. (US Pub. 2014/0184706) in view of Goto et al. (US Pub. 2015/0072458) and Yamamoto (US Pat. 8,016,394).
Nagatoya et al. disclose in Figures 1-2B a liquid ejecting head comprising:
Regarding claim 1, an ejection port (21) for ejecting liquid (ink) (Figure 2B);
a pressure chamber (12) in which pressure acts on the liquid ejected from the ejection port (21) (Figure 2B);
a flow path (13) communicating with the pressure chamber (12) (Figure 2B);
a substrate (10) forming the flow path (13) (Figure 2B); and
an organic film (50) for constituting a part of a wall surface of the flow path (13) and, wherein the organic film (50) is adhered, with an adhesive, to the substrate (10) (Figure 2B, paragraph 0047).
Howerver, Nagatoya et al. do not disclose suppressing vibration of the liquid in the flow path and the organic film and the adhesive are bonded through a siloxane bond.
Nevertheless, Goto et al. teach:
an ink jet head (301) including a nozzle (3031) and an organic film (301h) for suppressing vibration of the liquid (ink) in the flow path (Figure 3B, paragraphs 0191, 0046 and 0048).
Furthermore, Yamamoto teaches:
the vibration plate (40) and the adhesive (25, 35) are bonded through a siloxane bond (Figure 2, paragraph 201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goto et al. and Yamamoto in the Nagatoya et al.’s liquid ejecting head for the purpose of suppressing erosion of a vibrating plate caused by liquid.
Regarding claim 3, Nagatoya et al. disclose wherein the organic film comprises a polyimide (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 8, Nagatoya et al. disclose an ejection element (300) that generates pressure, the ejection element being a piezoelectric element (300) (Figure 2B, paragraph 0033).
Regarding claims 4-7, Nagatoya et al. (US Pub. 2014/0184706) in view of Goto et al. (US Pub. 2015/0072458) and Yamamoto (US Pat. 8,016,394) disclose the claimed invention except for “ wherein a portion of the organic film in contact with the adhesive is treated with plasma as recited in claim 4”; “wherein adhesion between the organic film and the adhesive comprises a bond through a silane agent, and the silane agent comprises an aminosilane agent as recited in claim 5”; “wherein the adhesive comprises a resin comprising a cyclobutene skeleton as recited in claim 6”; and “wherein the adhesive comprises divinylsiloxane-bisbenzocyclobutene as recited in claim 7”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use “wherein a portion of the organic film in contact with the adhesive is treated with plasma; wherein adhesion between the organic film and the adhesive comprises a bond through a silane agent, and the silane agent comprises an aminosilane agent; wherein the adhesive comprises a resin comprising a cyclobutene skeleton; and wherein the adhesive comprises divinylsiloxane-bisbenzocyclobutene”, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One would have been motivated to use “wherein a portion of the organic film in contact with the adhesive is treated with plasma; wherein adhesion between the organic film and the adhesive comprises a bond through a silane agent, and the silane agent comprises an aminosilane agent; wherein the adhesive comprises a resin comprising a cyclobutene skeleton; and wherein the adhesive comprises divinylsiloxane-bisbenzocyclobutene” for the purpose of obtaining a liquid droplet ejection head having superior dimensional accuracy, superior chemical resistance and high reliability and being capable of printing in high quality for a long period of time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. This claim would be allowable because the prior art references of record fail to teach or suggest a liquid ejection head comprising a bond represented by a following formula (1) in addition to the siloxane bond between the organic film and the adhesive, and a silane agent is present between the organic film and the adhesive:
—R1-X—R2- (1) in formula (1), X is at least one selected from the group consisting of —CO—NH—, —CH.sub.2—CHOH—CH.sub.2—O—CO—CH.sub.2—CH.sub.2—, —CHOH—CH.sub.2—N—, —CH.sub.2—(CH.sub.2—O—CH.sub.2)n-CH.sub.2—, —CO—O—, —CO—S—, —O—, and —NH—CO—O—, n is an average number of moles added and represents an integer of 1 to 200, and R1 and R2 indicate the bonding sites with the organic film and the silane agent. in the combination as claimed.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Anh Vo whose telephone number is (571) 272-
2262. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:30 A.M.to 6:00 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 431-0716. The fax phonenumber for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights