DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “and extending and extending.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-8, 10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakoshi et al. (10,350,902) in view of Shimazu (9,278,533).
Regarding claim 1, Miyakoshi teaches a printing device comprising:
an inkjet head (fig. 1, item 30);
a placing surface on which a printing medium is allowed to be places, the placing surface generally extending planularly in rear, front, left, and right directions crossing a gravity direction and extending and extending in the first direction (see illustration below, note also that “generally extending planularly” can mean more than one thing),
a conveyance mechanism configured to convey the printing medium in at least one of a first conveying direction along the first direction or a second conveying direction opposite to the first conveying direction (see illustration, note that drum conveys medium),
an accommodating portion (fig. 10, portion accommodating filter 209) configured to accommodate a filter (fig. 10, item 209) that collects ink mist (see fig. 10); and
a guide portion (fig. 10, item 213) arranged above the accommodating portion and configured to guide waste ink droplets due to the ink mist to the filter accommodated in the accommodating portion (see fig. 10)
wherein the guide portion includes a guide plate (fig. 10, plate extending horizontally in which opening 210 is disposed) extending from a side wall (fig. 10, wall from which guide plate, as defined above, extends horizontally) arranged above the accommodating portion in an extending direction crossing the side wall (see fig. 10, note that the accommodating portion extends in all directions), and
wherein the filter accommodated in the accommodating portion is disposed at a position lowered in a gravity direction from a specific tip end (fig. 10, tip end of guide plate, as defined above, where opening 210 begins) of the guide plate the specific tip end being a tip end in the guide plate (see fig. 10),
wherein in a state in which the inkjet head is disposed directly above the placing surface, the side wall and the guide plate are disposed away from the placing surface in the second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (see illustration, Note also that “disposed away from” can mean any number of things).
Miyakoshi does not teach wherein a lower surface of the guide plate between the side wall and the specific tip end is positioned on an upper side relative to a position of the specific tip end of the guide plate. Shimazu teaches an ink guiding plate to guide waste ink wherein a specific tip end of the plate is inclined downward to use gravity to guide the waste ink (Shimazu, see fig. 6, Note specific tip end 72A of guide plate 72 with the rest of the guide plate above the specific tip end in the vertical direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incline the specific tip end of the guide plate disclosed by Miyakoshi in the manner disclosed by Shimazu because doing so would allow for more effective ink flow by using gravity.
(Examiner is aware that Shimazu is directed to a specific tip portion of a guide plate for use with a platen, which is different than a mist collection system, as claimed. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains it would have been obvious to apply inclined surfaces of the type disclosed by Shimazu to guide plates of all types to encourage efficient liquid transfer).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
598
665
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1,
wherein the guide portion has a shape in which the waste ink droplets drop onto the filter (Miyakoshi, see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1,
wherein the filter is exposed upward at a plurality of exposing positions (see figs. 10, 11, note that there are any number of exposing positions along the filter) which is made by using a partition (see 112 rejection), and
wherein the guide plate has a shape in which the tip end of the guide plate is positioned above one of the exposing positions (Note that, upon combination of the references, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 5, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first nozzle row for a first color (Miyakoshi, cols. 2-3, lines 41-14, black), and
a second nozzle row for a second color (Miyakoshi, cols. 2-3, lines 41-14, yellow),
wherein the filter extends in a sub-scanning direction (Miyakoshi, figs. 10, 11) of the printing device, and
wherein, in a case where a longest side of the filter is defined as a side in a length direction, the length direction of the filter coincides with the sub-canning direction (Miyakoshi, see figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 6, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 5,
wherein the second nozzle row is separated from the first nozzle row in a front-rear direction (Miyakoshi, see figs. 10, 11), and
wherein at least a portion of the accommodating portion is disposed between a first arrangement region of the first nozzle row and a second arrangement region of the second nozzle row in the front-rear direction (Miyakoshi, see figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 7, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1,
wherein the filter is provided at a lower position than the inkjet head (Miyakoshi, see figs. 10, 11), and
wherein a fan that is configured to suck the ink mist is provided below the filter (Miyakoshi, see figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 8, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1,
wherein the accommodating portion includes a positioning portion (Miyakoshi, fig. 10, wall 211 along which filter 209 is positioned) that positions the filter at an accommodating position in the accommodation portion (Miyakoshi, see figs. 10, 11).
Regarding claim 10, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 8, wherein the positioning portion has a guide inclined surface that is configured to guide the filter to the accommodating position (Miyakoshi, see fig. 8, Note that mist collection units 33 can be inclined, in which case they would have an inclined surface to guide the filter to the accommodating position).
Regarding claim 16, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1, further comprising another filter configured to collect the ink mist, the another filter being disposed lowered in the gravity direction from the tip end of the guide plate (Miyakoshi, see fig. 12, note a plurality of filters 29 below the guide portion 213 and guide plate),
wherein the filter and the another filter are exposed upward at exposition positions different from each other, respectively (Miyakoshi, see fig. 12), and
wherein the guide plate has a shape in which the specific tip end of the guide plate in the lateral side is a lowermost end of the at least one of the exposing positions (Miyakoshi, see fig. 12).
Regarding claim 18, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1, wherein the guide plate is separated from the filter in the gravity direction (see illustration above).
Claim(s) 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Akagawa (8,498,550)
Regarding claim 9, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 8,
wherein the positioning portion includes:
a first positioning portion (fig. 10, portion of wall contacting top half of filter 29) provided at a position separated from a bottom surface (fig. 10, bottom surface of mist removal unit 33) of the accommodating portion of the filter by a height of the filter or higher at the use position (see fig. 10), and
a second positioning portion (fig. 10, portion of wall 211 protruding from bottom surface and extending just past the bottom surface of the filter) protruding in an upper direction relative to the bottom surface of the accommodating position on an outer side of the accommodating portion (see fig. 10),
wherein the first positioning portion and the second positioning portion are separated by a distance shorter than the height of the filter in a height direction of the filter (see fig. 10).
Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu does not teach wherein the accommodating portion is movable between a replacement position and a use position. Akagawa teaches a filter unit that can be removed from a printing device via an opening on the exterior of the housing of the printing device so that an accommodating portion is movable between a replacement position and a use position (Akagawa, see figs. 2A, 2B, 3, Note that filter 66 can be replaced when ion generating unit 60 is removed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the accommodating portion of Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu removable in the manner disclose by Akagawa because doing so would allow for maintenance of the accommodating portion.
Regarding claim 15, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1. Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu does not teach wherein the fan and the filter do not overlap. Akagawa teaches this (Akagawa, see fig. 3, Note fan 68 and filter 66). It would have been obvious to position the fan and the filter in the manner disclosed by Akagawa in the device disclosed by Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu because doing so would amount to a simple substitution of one known fan/filter arrangement for another to obtain predictable results. In other words, fans and filters can both be placed at any position in a ventilation path and serve their functions, and thus the relative positioning is just a product of the shape of the path. Further, according to MPEP 2144.04, a rearrangement of parts is only patentable if it modifies the operation of the device. As mentioned, operation of the device of Miyata is not modified by positioning the fan and filter in the manner claimed.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ochi et al. (2015/0251454)
Regarding claim 11, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 5. Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu does not teach wherein the first color is white and the second color is one of cyan, magenta, yellow, or black. Ochi teaches a printing device with printheads of white and black ink (Ochi, [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a printhead with white ink, as disclosed by Ochi, to the device disclosed by Miyakoshi because doing so would allow for more versatile printing options.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (2020/0307231).
Regarding claim 17, Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu teaches the printing device according to claim 1. Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu does not teach wherein the conveyance mechanism is configured to convey a platen along the first direction, the platen comprising the placing surface on which the printing medium is allowed to be places. Mori teaches this (Mori, [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the mist reduction system disclosed by Miyakoshi in view of Shimazu to the printing system disclosed by Mori because doing so would help reduce mist produced in Mori’s printing process, thereby increasing print quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the arrangement of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853