DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “in vertical direction.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites wherein the tube folds back “in a vertical direction along a movement direction of the carriage,” but it would seem the vertical direction and the movement direction are actually perpendicular to each other and thus cannot be said to be “along” each other. While the intention of the language is understood, correction is nonetheless required.
Because all other claims depend from claims 1 and 27, they are also rejected on this basis.
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, 24, 27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (8,336,987) in view of Fujiwara (4,758,104) and Domae (9,616,673).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Ito teaches a printing apparatus and control method comprising:
a carriage (fig. 2, item 15) including a print head (fig. 2, item 25) that discharges ink through an ink discharge port, the carriage reciprocally moving relative to a print medium (fig. 3, item 30);
a wiping unit (fig. 2, item 44) configured to wipe a discharge port surface of the
an ink tank (fig. 2, item 28) that holds ink and supplies the ink to the print head via a tube (fig. 2, item 29);
wherein the tube is disposed so as to have a section parallel to a movement direction of the carriage and is folded back along the movement direction of the carriage (see fig. 2); and
a control unit (fig. 14) configured to control a movement operation of the carriage and a wiping operation of the wiping unit such that in a case when a deceleration when stopping the carriage is a first deceleration (fig. 15, deceleration during high-speed printing), a time from when the carriage stops to when the wiping unit starts wiping the discharge port surface is a first time, and in a case when the deceleration when stopping the carriage is a second deceleration (fig. 15, deceleration during high-quality printing) whose absolute value is less than that of the first deceleration, (fig. 15, deceleration during high-quality printing), the time from when the carriage stops to when the wiping starts wiping the discharge port surface is a second time (Note that there is necessarily a first time and a second time because wiping occurs after both high-speed and high-quality printing).
Ito does not teach wherein the second time is shorter than the first time.
Fujiwara teaches wherein a controller selects one of several wait times after a carriage is scanned so as to allow carriage vibration to reduce to below a threshold according to the amount of residual vibration present from a previous scanning operation (Fujiwara, col. 2, lines 22-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the vibration reduction wait times disclosed by Fujiwara to the device disclosed by Ito because doing so would amount to substituting one known vibration reduction technique for another, Ito’s damper member, to obtain predictable results. In other words, by using wait times instead of dampening hardware, the complexity and cost of the device would be reduced. Further, while it is understood that Fujiwara discloses modifying wait times according to a next printing operation to be executed, and the immediate claim is directed to modifying wait times according to a wiping operation to follow a scanning movement, Examiner maintains that such wait times would have been obvious to implement in any number of functions following scanning movements requiring that the printhead and nozzles be positioned with precision, the functions including both subsequent printing scans and subsequent wiping operations.
Upon combination of Fujiwara with Ito, when Ito’s high-speed printing was executed, because carriage vibration was large, a larger wait time after stopping of the carriage would be executed before wiping so as to ensure proper registration of the nozzle surface and the wiper, and during high-quality printing, because the carriage moves slower, and not as much vibration is experienced, the wait time after the carriage was stopped would be shorter because vibration would dissipate quicker.
Moreover, the limitation requiring internal pressure of the discharge port returns to a negative pressure and to prevent breaking of a convex ink meniscus at the discharge port cause by a positive internal pressure of the discharge port would necessarily be met. That is, it is inherent within the teaching of Ito in view of Fujiwara that the meniscus would be stabilized after the wait time. That the claim also requires this to be “in order to control the wiping operation to unsure the wiping unit starts the wiping” after the stabilization does not add patentable weight to the claim as this is simply a restatement of the intention of the claimed invention. While Ito in view of Fujiwara may not seek to ensure such a wiping, the combination nonetheless meets all material limitations of the claim.
Ito in view of Fujiwara does not teach wherein the ink tank is set such that an ink level in the ink tank is below the discharge port surface of the print head in a direction of gravity and a pressure in the print head is maintained at a negative pressure due to a water head different during a printing operation and wherein a side of the ink tank is lower than an upper side of the print head and a side of the print head so that the print head is located higher than the ink tank or wherein the tube folds back in a vertical direction. Domae teaches this (Domae, compare figs. 2, 11, Note water head difference x1 and tube K/K’ folded back on itself crossing a horizontal plane in the vertical direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the water head difference disclosed by Domae to the device disclosed by Ito in view of Fujiwara because doing so would help maintain the pressure within the print head, thereby preventing leakage of ink from the nozzles.
Regarding claim 2, Ito in view of Fujiwara and Domae teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the first deceleration and the second deceleration are decelerations at which an internal pressure in the print head when the carriage stops is a positive pressure (Note that a print head is always kept at a positive pressure during a printing operation so as to be able to eject ink. This teaching is inherent in Ito).
Regarding claim 24, Ito in view of Fujiwara and Domae teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the internal pressure of the print head when the carriage is stopped in order for the wiping unit to wipe the discharge port surface is higher than the internal pressure of the print head in a state where the carriage is stopped (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 35, Ito in view of Fujiwara and Domae teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 34, wherein a movement of the carriage is a reciprocating movement between a first position (Ito, fig. 2, position on right side) and a second position (Ito, fig. 2, position on left side), and the wiping unit and the ink tank are both provided on the first position side (Ito, fig. 2, Note that wiping nit 44 and ink tank 28 are both on the right side of the scanning path).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Fujiwara and Domae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiratsuka et al. (2018/0079217).
Regarding claim 26, Ito in view of Fujiwara and Domae teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Ito in view of Fujiwara and Domae does not teach wherein the wiping unit has a wiping member constituted by a porous material having a sheet shape. Hiratsuka teaches this (Hiratsuka, [0151]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a cloth sheet as wiper, as disclosed by Hiratsuka, instead of the standard wiper disclosed by Ito in view of Fujiwara and Domae because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known wiper for another type of wiper to obtain predictable results.
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