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, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (8,313,181) in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 1, Murray teaches a liquid discharging apparatus, comprising:
a head (fig. 1, item 10) having nozzles (fig. 1, items 121), the head being configured to discharge liquid through the nozzles (see fig. 1);
a reservoir section (fig. 2, item 262), having:
a liquid reservoir chamber (fig. 4, item 243) configured to store the liquid (see fig. 6); and
a communication path (fig. 6, item 231/226) connecting inside and outside of the liquid reservoir chamber through an air portion (fig. 6, air contained in portions 230, 232) in the reservoir section, the reservoir section being mounted on the head (see fig. 6), wherein the reservoir section and the head are mounted to a carriage for reciprocal movement (compare figs. 2, 6),
a liquid flow path (fig. 6, item 248) connecting the head and the liquid reservoir chamber for the liquid to flow therein (see fig. 6);
a switching assembly (figs. 2, 6, items 340, 222, 215, 213, 214) configured to switch states of the communication path between a connecting state (fig. 6, state where valves 224, 228 are dotted), in which the inside and the outside of the liquid reservoir chamber are connected (see fig. 6), and a disconnecting state (fig. 6, state where valves 224, 228 are solid), in which the inside and the outside of the liquid reservoir chamber are disconnected (see fig. 6); and
a controller configured to:
control the switching assembly in a disconnecting process to switch the states of the communication path from the connecting state to the disconnecting state (col. 8, lines 51-68, note that the valves are switched to the disconnecting state when the carriage moves away from projection 340 and the valves close); and
control the head in a discharging process to discharge the liquid through the nozzles after the disconnecting process (col. 8, lines 51-68, note that the disconnecting state is affected when the carriage moves away from the projection 340, and note also that to be above the printing area during discharging of ink, the valves are necessarily closed),
determine whether a connection condition not indicative of a need to fill or refill the liquid reservoir chamber with liquid is satisfied for switching the states of the communication path from the disconnecting state to the connecting state, while in a disconnecting state and between discharging processes (cols. 6-7, lines 56-21, note that there are any number of connection conditions contemplated),
in response to determining that the connection condition is satisfied, control the switching assembly to switch the states of the communication path from the disconnecting state to the connecting state (cols. 6-7, lines 56-21, note that there are any number of connection conditions contemplated. For purposes of examination, the connection condition is being taken to be when a temperature sensor detects the temperature of the printhead has exceeded a predetermined temperature),
wherein the controller is configured to, after the states of the communication path is switched from the disconnecting state to the connecting state based on the determination that the connection condition is satisfied, control the switching assembly to switch the states of the communication path from the connecting state to the disconnecting state (cols. 6-7, lines 56-21, Note that after the connection condition is satisfied and the connecting state affected, for the next print job, the carriage moves away from the projection, the valves close and the communication path is put into the disconnecting state),
wherein the liquid reservoir chamber is not refilled with the liquid during an entire period when the communication path is in the connecting state based on the determination that the connection condition is satisfied (see fig. 2, Note that no refilling takes place).
While Murray does not expressly teach wherein a volume Vb of the air portion is set to satisfy formulas (1) and (2):
Vb= (Po+ΔP)* ΔV/ΔP...(1); and
ΔP≤Po
wherein Po represents one atmosphere,
wherein ΔV represents a change in the volume of the air portion due to a change in a volume of the liquid caused by discharging a predetermined amount of the liquid in the discharging process,
wherein ΔP represents a change in pressure of the air portion according to the change in the volume of the liquid in the discharging process, and
wherein Pm represents a pressure resistance of menisci formed with the liquid in the nozzles,
Examiner maintains that all specific volumes and pressures are inherent within Murray. That is, if the limitations directed to specific volumes and pressures were not inherent within Murray, Murray’s device would not be functional. Further, the meniscus limitation is necessarily met because if it wasn’t met, either the nozzles would leak or the menisci would break resulting in unstable ejection, both of these rendering Murray’s device inoperable.
While Murray does not expressly teach determining whether the connection condition is satisfied between discharging processes for a same sheet, Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to monitor the temperature of the printhead at all times, including multiple times during a single sheet passage, to determine if the connection condition was satisfied. Further, it would have been obvious to stop a discharge process during the printing of a single sheet, lower the temperature of the printhead, and the continue to finish discharging on that same sheet because doing so would ensure the completion of printing on that single sheet without meniscus stability issues.
Regarding claim 2, Murray in view of official notice teaches the liquid discharging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein ΔV represents the change in the volume of the air portion due to the change in the volume of the liquid caused by discharging the predetermined amount of the liquid in the discharging process to record a specific image on a sheet under a specific condition (Note that any printing requires doing so with a specific image under a multitude of “specific conditions”).
Regarding claim 5, Murray in view of official notice teaches the teaches the liquid discharging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the connection condition is a duration of the discharging process reaching a predetermined time (cols. 6-7, lines 56-21). Murray in view of official notice does not specifically teach wherein the predetermined time is 30 seconds. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to optimize those conditions through routine experimentation. Here, while Murray does not expressly give a number of seconds, all other conditions of claimed invention are present in the art, and thus to claim a specific time threshold is not inventive.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray in view of official notice as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Teramoto et al. (2018/0265722).
Regarding claim 3, Murray in view of official notice teaches the liquid discharging apparatus according to claim 2. Murray in view of official notice does not teach wherein the specific image is a pattern image defined by the International Organization for Standardization, and wherein the specific condition is recording the pattern image continuously for a specific length of time. Teramoto teaches this (Teramoto, [0114]-[0120], Note that the pattern is printed once every ten sheets for predetermined ranges of numbers of sheets, each range having a specific length of time associated with it). It would have been obvious to use the test chart disclosed by Teramoto as a diagnostic of ink nozzle health and color fastness in the device disclose by Murray in view of official notice because doing so would amount to combining a prior art maintenance technique with a prior art printer structure to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Murray in view of official notice and Teramoto teaches liquid discharging apparatus according to claim 3,
wherein the specific length of time is 30 seconds (Teramoto, [0114]-[0120], note that one could simply select whatever number of sheets has been printed by Teramoto’s process when 30 seconds have passed. That is, the claim does not require that the printing stop at 30 seconds, but even if it did, see below),
wherein the pattern image is a multicolor pattern image (Teramoto, [0120]),
wherein the specific condition is recording the pattern image continuously for 30 seconds in a standard mode defined by the International Organization for Standardization on the sheet in A4-size (Teramoto, [0114]).
Further, it should be noted that MPEP 2144.05 states that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Here, Teramoto discloses printing the same pattern under the standard conditions known in the art. Applicant has claimed an amount of time required to print the pattern, but claiming such a time is just an optimization of the general conditions in the art and thus, the claimed time is not patentable. It is also worth noting that it is unclear whether the time limitations actually has any practical effect on the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Murray.
Conclusion
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