DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 53-62 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the invention is a patentably distinct method from the originally presented apparatus. The apparatus can be used for materially different purposes from the method such as routine printing without cleaning.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 53-62 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 41 and 43-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (2007/0252863) in view of Nagamine et al. (2009/0189964).
Regarding claims 41, Sun teaches an inkjet recording device comprising:
a print head (fig. 4, item 108) that receives a supply of ink to perform printing ([0033]); and
a main body (fig. 1, item 100) that includes an ink container (see fig. 1, note that an ink container is necessarily present) to contain the ink and a solvent container ([0028], note that there is necessarily a solvent container) to contain a solvent, and that supplies the ink in the ink container to the print head (see figs. 1-4),
wherein the print head includes a nozzle ([0034]) that discharges the ink as ink particles, ([0034]) and
the inkjet recording device comprises a head cleaning unit (fig. 1, item 116) in which the print head is set to clean the print head (see fig. 4);
a recovery container ([0041]) provided at a bottom portion of the head cleaning unit (see fig. 4); and
a sensor that detects whether or not the print head is mounted in the head cleaning unit ([0052]); and
a control unit (fig. 1, item 114) that controls the supply of ink, wherein
when the print head is set in the cleaning unit, the control unit controls the supply of ink to the nozzle and recovery of the discharged ink ([0054], see fig. 8, step 508).
Sun does not teach a charging electrode that charges ink particles discharged from the nozzle, a deflection electrode that deflects the ink particles charged by the charging electrode, and a gutter that recovers the ink not used for the printing. Nagamine teaches this (Nagamine, [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the cleaning system disclosed by Sun to the continuous printing head disclosed by Nagamine because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device in need of improvement to yield predictable results. In other words, while Sun is directed to a nozzle cleaner for an on-demand inkjet device, it would have been obvious to adapt such a cleaning device to other types of inkjet devices including a continuous inkjet device of the type disclosed by Nagamine.
Sun also does not teach the amended claim language directed to the circulation paths, the gutter being located between the nozzle and the recovery container, the pump and the circulation of ink. Nagamine teaches this (Nagamine, [0015], see fig. 3, Note that inserting the print head 610 into a head mounting unit of the type disclosed by Sun would have the gutter between the nozzle and the recovery container). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a circulation control of the type disclosed by Nagamine to the device disclosed by Sun in view of Nagamine above because doing so would allow for circulation of ink, thereby keeping the ink fresh. Further, upon addition of this functionality, to perform such a functionality when the print head was at the head mounting unit would have been obvious because completing any maintenance processes at the head mounting unit would have been obvious, and circulation was a maintenance process.
(Note that “when the print head unit is set in the head mounting unit, the control unit controls the supply of ink to the nozzle and the recovery of discharged ink from the gutter” could mean more than one thing. While the language intends to state that ink is ejected from the nozzle, simply reciting that the control unit controls the supply of ink could mean the control unit controls the system to not supply ink. Thus, while Examiner maintains that the above combination teaches the circulation of ink when the print head is in the head mounting unit, an alternative argument would be that the claim does not necessarily require the nozzle to discharge ink to the gutter for circulation when the print head unit is in the head mounting unit).
Furthermore, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 43, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 41. Sun in view of Nagamine does not expressly teach a detector that detects whether or not the ink discharged from the nozzle is recovered from the gutter, wherein when the detector detects that the ink is not recovered from the gutter, discharge of the ink from the nozzle is stopped. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 44, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 41. Sun in view of Nagamine does not expressly teach a charge sensor that detects a charge amount of the ink particles charged by the charging electrode, wherein in a state where the print head is mounted in the head mounting portion, the ink particles are discharged from the nozzle, the ink particles discharged from the nozzle are charged by the charging electrode, and the charge amount of the ink particles is detected by the charge sensor. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 45, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 44. Sun in view of Nagamine does not teach wherein it is determined whether or not the ink particles discharged from the nozzle are recovered from the gutter, based on a detection result of the charge sensor, and when it is determined that the ink particles are not recovered from the gutter, discharge of the ink from the nozzle is stopped. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 46, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 41. Sun in view of Nagamine does not teach a function of circulating the ink in a state where the print head is set in the head cleaning unit. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 47, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 46. Sun in view of Nagamine does not teach wherein the circulation of the ink is regularly repeated. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 48, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 41. Sun in view of Nagamine does not teach wherein a viscometer is provided that detects a viscosity of the ink, and control is performed such that the viscosity of the ink is regularly measured and the viscosity of the ink is within a certain range. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 49, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 41, wherein in a cleaning mode, the solvent is supplied to clean the print head in a state where the print head is set in the head cleaning unit (Sun, see fig. 4).
Further, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 50, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 41, wherein the head cleaning unit includes an air nozzle (Sun, [0029]) that supplies air, and the main body includes an air supply unit that supplies the air to the air nozzle (Sun, [0029]).
Further, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 51, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 50. Sun in view of Nagamine does not teach wherein when the print head is cleaned with the solvent, the nozzle or the gutter carries out an operation of suctioning a cleaning liquid or the air. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Regarding claim 52, Sun in view of Nagamine teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 50. Sun in view Nagamine does not teach wherein the print head or the head mounting portion is provided with a temperature detector, and an air spray time is controlled using the air supply unit based on a detection value of the temperature detector. However, according to MPEP 2114, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Accordingly, the manner of operating a claimed device does not differentiate the device from the prior art. Here, what appears to be a series of steps have been claimed, but the steps are directed solely to the manner of operating the device and do not distinguish the device structurally.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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