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, 6-8, 17-19 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajimoto et al. (2014/0292911) in view of Nielsen (2021/0339537).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Kajimoto teaches a printer and cleaning assembly, comprising:
a discharge portion (fig. 3) configured to discharge ink;
a cleaning fluid vessel (fig. 8B, item 200) including an inflow port (fig. 8B, note unlabeled inflow port in bottom of portion 204), a first peripheral wall (fig. 8B, rightmost wall of cleaning vessel 200 closest to head 110) and a first bottom wall (fig. 8B, wall portion of 200 in which inflow port is disposed) the first peripheral wall extending in a first direction orthogonal to an up-down direction (see fig. 8B), the first peripheral wall and the first bottom wall defining a storage space (fig. 8B, note space in which cleaning fluid is held) configured to store a cleaning fluid flowing in from the inflow port (see fig. 8B),
a flushing box (fig. 2, item 260) configured to receive in discharged from the discharge portion ([0095]), wherein the discharge portion discharges the ink to the flushing box but not to the cleaning vessel ([0095]),
a first communicating portion (fig. 8B, leftmost wall portion of cleaning vessel 200 over which cleaning fluid flows into item 290) configured to communicate the cleaning fluid vessel with the flushing box ([0125]),
wherein the first communicating portion is located below an upper end of the first peripheral wall (see fig. 8B, Note that, as defined, the limitation is met. That is, the left wall of cleaning fluid vessel 200 is lower than the right wall of the vessel).
Kajimoto, fig. 8B teaches wherein item 290 is a cap, not a flushing box. However, Kajimoto also teaches wherein only one of suction cap 260 and moisturizing cap 290 is present in the prior art device and wherein the one present one of the two caps takes on the rolls of both caps ([0100]). Thus, while cap 260 normally serves as a flushing box, if only cap 290 is present in the device, cap 290 would then serve as a flushing box, and upon this modification, the portion where fluid flows from cleaning fluid vessel 200 into flushing box 290 would be a communication portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make such a modification because doing so would eliminate the need for one of the two caps, thereby reducing the space required by the maintenance mechanism and reducing cost of the maintenance mechanism.
Furthermore, according to MPEP 2144.04, a rearrangement of parts is only patentable if it modifies the operation of the prior art device. Here, Kajimoto’s Figures 2, 8B show wherein a second capping section 290 is immediately adjacent a cleaning fluid vessel 200, and a first capping section 260 is not immediately adjacent the cleaning fluid vessel. Examiner maintains that to swap the positions of the second cap 290 and the first cap 260 is a rearrangement of parts that would not modify the operation of the device. Upon such a rearrangement, first capping section 260, which would also serve as a flushing box (Kajimoto, [0095]), would meet the limitations requiring the flushing box to be immediately adjacent to the cleaning fluid vessel.
Kajimoto does not expressly teach wherein a flushing box is a member different from a cap configured to contact the discharge portion or wherein the flushing box does not contact the discharge portion even when the discharge portion is positioned above the flushing box. Nielsen teaches both of a cap configured to contact a discharge portion and a flushing box configured not to contact the discharge portion (Nielsen, [0085], see fig. 7, Note that seal of cap 773 contacts discharge portion 703 while no contact is made between the flushing box 771 and the discharge portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the flushing box disclosed by Kajimoto so as not to contact the discharge portion, as disclosed by Nielsen, because doing so would amount to applying a known flushing box construction to a device with a flushing box to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer and cleaning assembly according to claims 1 and 17, respectively, wherein the first communicating portion is provided at a first side wall provided between the cleaning fluid vessel and the flushing box in the first direction (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer and cleaning assembly according to claims 1 and 17, respectively, wherein at least a part of the first communicating portion is lower, in the up-down direction, than an upper end of the first peripheral wall of the cleaning fluid vessel (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B).
Regarding claims 6 and 22, Kajimoto in view of Neilsen teaches the printer and cleaning assembly according to claims 1 and 17, respectively, wherein a plurality of the first communicating portions are provided to be mutually separated in the second direction (Kajimoto, see figs. 2, Note that if the first direction is into the page FIRST DIRECTION as indicated in the figure, and the second direction is SECOND DIRECTION as indicated in the figure, any number of portions of the communicating area could be broken up with spaces between them in the second direction).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer and cleaning assembly according to claims 2 and 18, respectively, wherein the inflow port is formed in the first bottom wall (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B), the first side wall extends upward from the first bottom wall (Kajimoto, fig. 8B), and at the first bottom wall, a position below the first communicating portion is lower than a position at which the inflow port is formed (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B).
Regarding claims 8 and 24, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer and cleaning assembly according to claims 1 and 17, respectively wherein a discharge port is formed at a position in the first bottom wall, the position overlapping the first communicating portion and the first bottom wall in the second direction (see fig. 8B, Note that if the first bottom wall is taken to be the bottom extremity of the material from which both items 200 and 290 are constructed, the limitation is met).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajimoto in view of Nielsen as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Maruyama (2013/0241995).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer and cleaning assembly according to claims 1 and 17, respectively, wherein the flushing box includes a second bottom wall (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B, bottom wall of flushing box 290), and the second bottom wall includes a waste liquid port separated from the first communicating portion in the second direction (Kajimoto, note that, upon modification as detailed in the rejection of clams 1 and 17, moisturizing cap 290 would be provided with the waste liquid port originally provided to suction cap 260), an inclined section positioned between the first communicating portion and the waste liquid port in the second direction (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B), the inclined section becoming lower from the first communicating portion toward the waste liquid port (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer and cleaning assembly according to claims 4 and 20, respectively, wherein the flushing box includes a flow path wall extending upward from the second bottom wall and defining a flow path toward the waste liquid port (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B, note that any portion of the peripheral wall of the flushing box meets this limitation).
Claim(s) 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajimoto in view of Nielsen as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Kage et al. (11,014,363)
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer according to claims 1 and 17, respectively, wherein the first peripheral wall includes four adjoining walls, as claimed (Kajimoto, see figs. 2, 8). Kajimoto in view of Nielsen does not teach a wiper, the wiper being within the bounds of the first peripheral wall. Kage teaches this (Kage, see fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a wiper, as disclosed by Kage, to the cleaning fluid vessel disclosed by Kajimoto in view of Nielsen because doing so would allow for wiping of the nozzles, thereby adding functionality to the maintenance section of Kajimoto in view of Mizuno.
Regarding claims 29 and 31, Kajimoto in view of Nielsen teaches the printer according to claims 1 and 17, respectively, wherein the flushing box includes a second bottom wall (Kajimoto, see fig. 8B, Note bottom wall of cap 290). Kajimoto in view of Nielsen does not teach wherein the second bottom wall includes a waste liquid port, and a discharge port is formed in the first bottom wall. Kage teaches a waste liquid port/discharge port in a container that accumulates waste liquid (Kage, see fig. 3c, Note port 321). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a waste liquid port/discharge port, as disclosed by Kage, to any container disclosed by Kajimoto in view of Nielsen that accumulated liquid requiring evacuation. Because both of Kajimoto in view of Nielsen’s cleaning liquid vessel and flushing box would necessarily require discharge ports for removal of waste liquids or refreshment of the cleaning liquid, it would have been obvious to add discharge ports to both of those containers.
Further, MPEP 2144.04 states that a rearrangement of parts is not patentable if such a rearrangement does not modify the operation of the prior art device. The claim requires that the waste liquid port and the discharge port are formed in the bottom walls of the containers, but Examiner maintains that disposing the ports in the bottom walls of the containers instead of the side walls close to the bottoms of the containers does not patentably modify the operation of the device. Indeed, Kajimoto does disclose a supply port in the bottom wall of its cleaning fluid vessel. Thus, it also would have been obvious to form the claimed waste liquid port and discharge port in the bottom walls of the cleaning fluid vessel and flushing box, respectively, given the disclosure of Kajimoto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure of the device, but the amendments fail 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, 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