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) 1-3, 8-12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki (2008/0192085) in view of Miyagawa et al. (2020/0290380) and Hirabayashi et al. (5,172,140) and Endo (2008/0018692).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Shimazaki teaches a liquid ejection apparatus comprising;
a liquid ejection head (fig. 4, item 43) having a nozzle surface (fig. 4, item 43a) with a plurality of nozzles (fig. 4, items 47), the liquid ejection head being configured to eject liquid from the nozzles (see fig. 4, item D);
a cap device (fig. 4, item 78/15/74) including
a conductive member (fig. 4, item 78) configured to face the nozzle surface;
a cap (fig. 4, item 15) having a recess (fig. 4, item 74) in which the conductive member is accommodated (see fig. 4), the cap being configured to receive liquid ejected from the nozzles (see fig. 4);
a substrate including a signal output circuit (fig. 4, item 7) configured to output a signal in response to ejection of liquid from a nozzle of the nozzles to the conductive member (see fig. 4), the signal indicating a potential difference between the liquid ejection head and the conductive member ([0087], note that all such circuits would be in the form of a substrate);
a controller (fig. 6, item 60) including a central processing unit (CPU) (fig. 6, item 60) connected to the substrate and configured to determine an ejection state of the nozzle based on the signal output from the signal output circuit ([0091], see fig. 6);
a waste liquid tank (fig. 5, item 128) having an inlet (fig. 5, top of tank into which tube from pump 16 is inserted); and
a discharge mechanism (fig. 5, pump 16) configured to discharge liquid from the cap through the inlet into the waste liquid tank (see fig. 5).
Shimazaki does not expressly disclose wherein the substrate is disposed above the inlet of the waste ink tank, wherein the substrate is disposed above the cap device and facing in a direction perpendicular to a direction faced by the nozzle surface of the substrate, wherein the waste liquid tank inlet is below the substrate, and wherein the substrate has a planar surface that faces a direction perpendicular to the nozzle surface and is disposed entirely above the cap device. Miyagawa teaches wherein a control substrate is disposed facing the perpendicular direction and entirely above a printhead (Miyagawa, see fig. 1, Note substrate 100 entirely above printhead 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to dispose a circuit substrate at the level disclosed by Miyagawa in the device disclosed by Shimakazi because doing so would amount to combining a known control board positioning with a known device to yield predictable results. In other words, because Shimakazi does not give exact details about the positioning of its circuit board, it would have been obvious to look to Miyagawa for information about where an appropriate positioning would be.
Upon combination of Miyagawa with Shimakazi, the resultant substrate would be positioned above a cap device and waste liquid tank. That is, because the cap and tank of Shimakazi are positioned below its printhead, and the combined are teaches positioning the substrate above the printhead, the substrate would be entirely above both the cap and the tank.
Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa does not teach wherein the inlet is located above a bottom of the cap device. Hirabayashi teaches this (Hirabayashi, see fig. 3, Note bottom of cap 10 is lower than upper end of wall 17, which forms inlet of waste liquid tank). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the cap and inlet disclosed by Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa in the configuration disclosed by Hirabayashi because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known cap/waste liquid tank arrangement for another to obtain predictable results.
Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa and Hirabayashi does not expressly teach wherein the substrate overlaps the waste liquid tank when viewed in a vertical direction. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a rearrangement of parts is not patentable unless it modifies the operation of the prior art device. Here, the claim recites a specific spatial relation between the substrate and the waste liquid tank, but the substrate and waste liquid tanks of the claimed invention and the prior art combination serve the exact same purposes, and thus simply reciting where the two are in space relative to each other does not patentably modify the operation of the device. As disclosed by each of the prior art references, waste liquid tanks of the type disclosed in the immediate specification can take any number of shapes and sizes and can be accommodated in any number of positions within printer housings. Thus, Examiner maintains that the recitation that the substrate overlaps the waste liquid tank in the vertical direction would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts that does not patentably modify the operation of such a cap/waste liquid tank/control board arrangement.
Shimazki in view of Miyagawa and Hirabayashi does not expressly teach wherein the controller includes an application specific integrated circuit. Endo teaches this (Endo, [0040], see fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to add an ASIC of the type disclosed by Endo to the device disclosed by Shimazki in view of Miyagawa and Hirabayashi because doing so would allow for more efficient determination of the ejection state withi. the printer.
Regarding claim 2, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is disposed above an upper end of the waste liquid tank (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the substrate overlaps the waste liquid tank in an up-down direction (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cap device has, in the bottom, a discharge hole for discharging ink, and wherein the inlet of the waste liquid tank is above the discharge hole (Hirabayashi, see fig. 13)
Regarding claim 10, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the cap device further includes a holder supporting the cap from below, the holder has the discharge hole (Hirabayashi, see figs. 5,13, Note unlabeled holding portion holding cap from below, and note that a discharge hole is in the holding portion)
Regarding claim 11, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inlet of the waste liquid tank is located at an upper end of the waste liquid tank (Hirabayashi, see fig. 13).
Regarding claim 12, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the discharge mechanism includes a suction pump, and a tube having one end connected to the suction pump and the other end connected to the inlet of the waste liquid tank, the other end of the tube being above the one end of the tube (Shimazaki, see fig. 2, Note tube 13 with one end connected to suction pump 11 and the other end connected to the inlet 17, the inlet end being above the suction pump end).
Regarding claim 16, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the substrate includes the signal output circuit on the surface (Miyagawa, see fig. 1)
Regarding claim 17, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the tube is detachable from the inlet of the waste ink tank at the other end (Shimakazi, fig. 5, Note that tube 127 is made of flexible material and thus can be detached from tank 128. Hirabayashi, compare figs. 2, 6).
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo ‘692 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (2007/0134969) and Sasaki (2016/0250849).
Regarding claim 4, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo ‘692 teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1. Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo ‘692 does not teach an electrode pin having conductivity and electrically connected to the conductive member. Endo teaches this (Endo, see figs. 4, 5, item 145, [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of invention to use electrode pins for the conductive member, as disclosed by Endo, instead of the sheet-like conductive member used by Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo ‘692 because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known -in-cap conductor for another to obtain predictable results.
Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi, Endo ‘692 and Endo ‘969 does not teach a harness having a first end and a second end opposite to the first end, the first end being electrically connected to the signal output circuit, the second end being electrically connected to the electrode pin, wherein the second end of the harness is disposed below the substrate. Sasaki teaches using harnesses to carry conductive wires between substrates within a printing device (Sasaki, [0083]-[0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a harness, as disclosed by Sasaki to the device disclosed by Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa and Hirabayashi and Endo because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In other words, while Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo do not specify how exactly the substrate and electrode are coupled physically, Sasaki discloses how such a physical connection would be arranged, and thus to use that disclosure would have been obvious). Upon combination of the electrode pin and harnesses of Endo and Sasaki, respectively, to the general arrangement of Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi and Endo, the second end of the harness would be located below the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi, Endo ‘692 and Endo ‘969 and Sasaki teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the discharge mechanism includes a tube (Shimazaki, fig. 5, item 127) to transfer liquid from the cap to the waste liquid tank, the tube having a length longer than the harness (Note that, upon combination of the references, the spacing described in the rejection of claim 1 would result in the tube having a longer length).
Regarding claim 6, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi, Endo ‘692 and Endo ‘969 and Sasaki teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the conductive member is one of a plurality of conductive members (Endo, [0051], note that multiple pins are contemplated), wherein the electrode pin is one of a plurality of electrode pins (Endo, [0051]), each pin corresponding to a conductive member of the conductive members (Endo, [0051]), wherein the liquid ejection apparatus further comprises a connection member having conductivity, the connection member electrically connecting the harness and the electrode pins (Note that, upon combination, the resultant device would necessarily meet the limitation).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi, Endo ‘692, Endo ‘969 and Sasaki as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Motoyama et al. (7,992,957).
Regarding claim 7, Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi, Endo ‘692, Endo ‘969 and Sasaki teaches liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 4. Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi, Endo and Sasaki wherein the substrate includes a high-voltage application circuit configured to apply a high-voltage to the conductive member. Motoyama teaches this (Motoyama, fig. 4, col. 8, lines 15-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a high-voltage application circuit of the type disclosed by Motoyama to the device disclosed by Shimazaki in view of Miyagawa, Hirabayashi, Endo and Sasaki because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results.
Upon combination, the harness would necessarily need to be a high-voltage harness. Sasaki teaches wherein the harness has connectors at both ends (Sasaki, see fig. 4, Note connection ports 330b, 273b of substrates 330, 200 on both sides of harness 410). Upon combination of the references, the resultant device would meet the limitation:
wherein the high-voltage harness is detachably connected via the connector to the signal output circuit and the high-voltage application circuit of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
Prosecution Insights