DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “all of the openings in the shroud” lacks antecedent basis. 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) 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valero Navazo et al. (10,245,849) in view of Fukui et al. (2021/0138791) in view of Hattori et al. (2017/0266964).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Valero Navazo teaches a shroud assembly for a group of printheads that define a print zone in an inkjet printer, the assembly comprising:
a printhead (fig. 3, item 20);
one air injector (fig. 3, item 38), the air injector spanning a full width of the print zone (see figs. 5, 6), the one air injector being angled downward with respect to a print media moving through the print zone during printing (see figs. 5, 6) perpendicularly to the full width of the print zone during printing to inject air upstream from the printhead (see figs. 3-6), across a full width of the print zone, between a bottom of the printhead and a top of the print media, and parallel with movement of the print media through the print zone (see figs. 3-6).
Valero Navazo does not teach a shroud. Fukui teaches a shroud (Fukui, fig. 5, item 31, fig. 3, entire lower surface of item 20 facing media) spanning a full width of the print zone (see fig. 3) and having openings (Fukui, fig. 5, items 311) therein through which the group of printheads (Fukui, fig. 5, items 21) are exposed during printing (see fig. 5), wherein the group of printheads is arranged such that one row of printheads is in a staggered configuration relative to a second row of printheads (Fukui, see fig. 3, note staggered printheads 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pagewidth printing arrangement including staggered printheads protruding through a shroud, as disclosed by Fukui, for the scanning-type printing device disclosed by Valero Navavo because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one well-known printing scheme for another to obtain predictable results. In other words, applying Valero Navazo’s air injector would have been obvious in either of the two main types of printers.
Upon combination of Fukui with Valero Navazo, the resultant device would have an air injector attached to the shroud and upstream of the openings in the shroud. Note that Figures 3 and 4 of the present application do not appear to show that the shroud and the air injector are attached or integral. As such, Examiner maintains that all components are “attached to” each other by being part of the same printer, and this is the case in the above combination.
Valero Navazo in view of Fukui does not teach wherein the air injector configured to discharging air heated by a heater to dehumidify the air to a relative humidity of the air to 5% or less. Hattori teaches dehumidifying air in the print zone to a specific target range corresponding to relative humidity lower than a dew point of a printhead (Hattori, [0021], [0023], [0243]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to dehumidify the air blown by Fukui as disclosed by Hattori because doing so allow for preventing condensation on the printheads, which could result in faulty printing.
While Hattori does not expressly disclose dehumidifying the air to a relative humidity of 5% or less, Examiner maintains one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious given Hattori’s disclosure to operate in such a range. Further, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds an optimized relative humidity range of the air to be injected.
Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori does not expressly teach lowering a dew point in the print zone by discharging air of a temperature in a range of 40 degrees Celsius to 55 degrees Celsius. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds an optimized temperature range of the air to be injected. Further, the language “configured to lower a dew point” is being taken to be met simply by virtue of the injection of heated air.
Regarding claim 2, Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori teaches the assembly of Claim 1, wherein the air injector comprises:
a plenum (Valero Navazo, fig. 4, item 78) spanning the full width of the print zone (Valero Navazo, see figs. 3-6); and
an outlet (Valero Navazo, see figs. 3-6, item 80) from the plenum through which air may be discharged from the plenum during printing (Valero Navazo, see figs. 3-6), the outlet spanning a full width of the print zone and oriented angled downward with respect to a print media moving through the print zone during printing (Valero Navazo, see figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 3, Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 2, wherein the outlet is oriented angled downward 30° to 60° with respect to the print media moving through the print zone during printing (Valero Navazo, see figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 3. Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori does not teach wherein the outlet is located at least 4cm upstream from a nearest opening in the shroud. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds a minimum distance between the outlet and a particular opening, but this range of distances appears to have been discovered through routine experimentation and thus is not patentable.
Regarding claim 5, Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 4. Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori does not teach wherein the outlet is configured to discharge 275kPa plenum air at 15m/s to 50m/s. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds a pressure and range of air velocities, but this range of velocity appears to have been discovered through routine experimentation and thus is not patentable.
Regarding claim 6, Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 5, wherein the outlet comprises multiple holes (Valero Navazo, fig. 6, items 80). Valero Navazo in view of Fukui and Hattori does not teach wherein the holes are sized and shaped to discharge 275kPa plenum air at 15m/s to 50m/s. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds a minimum distance between the outlet and a particular opening, but this range of distances appears to have been discovered through routine experimentation and thus is not patentable.
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
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