DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites both “the ejection port arrays” and “the ejection port array.” 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, 8, 9, 11 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe (2015/0062242) in view of Sato et al. (2018/0264821).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kambe teaches a printing apparatus comprising:
a print head (fig. 1, note that a printhead is mounted to carriage 102) configured to perform printing in a printing region (fig. 1, region corresponding to platen 106), and include a first nozzle cover (fig. 8, rightmost cover 909), a second nozzle cover (fig. 9, leftmost cover 909) and an ejection port surface (fig. 9, item 910) where a plurality of ejection ports is formed ([0049]), the ejection port surface being provided between the first nozzle cover and the second nozzle cover in a first direction (fig. 9, left/right on page) and the second nozzle cover being provided closer to the printing region than the first nozzle cover (compare figs. 1, 9, note that the leftmost cover 909 is closer to printing region),
a carriage (fig. 1, item 102), on which the print head is mounted, configured to move in the first direction (see fig. 1);
a wiper (fig. 8, item 802, fig. 1, item 104) configured to wipe the ejection port surface, the first nozzle cover, and the second nozzle cover by moving in a wiping direction (fig. 8, into page) intersecting the first direction (see fig. 1); and
a controller configured to perform control for the wiper to execute:
a first wiping operation in which the wiper wipes the second nozzle cover and the ejection port surface and does not wipe the first nozzle cover in a state where the print head is in a first position (see fig. 8B); and
a second wiping operation in which the wiper wipers the first nozzle cover and the ejection port surface and does not wipe the second nozzle cover in a state where the print head is in a second position closer to the printing region than the first position in the first direction (see fig. 8C, compare with figure 1. Note that the embodiment according to figure 8 is being used for this rejection. Although the description of the embodiment according to figure 8 is silent as to the first and second covers being wiped by the wiper 802, this teaching is implied as 1) there would be no purpose for the outside portions of the wiper if not and 2) the first and second covers are wiped in all other embodiments),
wherein, in a case where the printing is completed, the controller controls the wiper to execute a normal wiping sequence by performing the first wiping operation and not performing the second wiping operation (see fig. 8B, note that any execution of the shown first wiping operation can be said to be done on its own without any other operations). Kambe, fig. 8 does not teach performing a wide wiping sequence by performing, in this order, the first wiping operation, the second wiping operation and the first wiping operation. However, Kambe, fig. 3, does teach executing multiple wipings at multiple positions in the first direction so as to wipe each portion of a printhead multiple times in any number of combinations of positions (Kambe, figs. 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatingly perform the wipings of Kambe’s figures 8B and 8C instead of performing each one once because doing so would allow for a more thorough cleaning of the print head. Upon application of the multiple wiping step application of Kambe’s figure 3 to the arrangement of figure 8, the resultant device would perform the first wiping, the second wiping and the first wiping in a wide wiping sequence when an intense wiping was required.
Kambe does not teach wherein, in a case where an amount of liquid ejected from the print head since a most recent wiping operation exceeds a predetermined value, the controller controls the wiper to execute a wiping sequence that is more thorough or more intense than a normal wiping operation. Sato teaches this (Sato, [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to execute a more thorough wiping operation when a predetermined amount of liquid ejected from a last wiping operation was exceeded, as disclosed by Sato, in the device disclosed by Kambe because doing so would take into account an amount of liquid or dried ink on the nozzle surface, thereby allowing for more thorough cleaning when a high amount of wiping was required.
Upon combination of Sato with Kambe, the wide wiping disclosed by combining Kambe’s figures 8 and 3 would be performed when amount of liquid ejected from the print head since a most recent wiping operation exceeds a predetermined value.
It should be noted that, according to MPEP 2114, an apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does. Here, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus with a carriage, a printhead and a wiper, and a number of functional limitations are directed to the manner of operating the wiper. These functional limitations are directed to what the device does, not what the device is.
Regarding claim 8, Kambe in view of Sato teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller performs control so that a notch included in the wiper faces a step portion between the ejection port surface and the second nozzle cover, in a state where the first wiping operation is executed (Kambe, see figs. 3, 8, Note wiper 302 with notches 303).
Regarding claim 9, Kambe in view of Sato teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second nozzle cover surface protrudes downward with respect to the ejection port surface (Kambe, see figs. 3, 9).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Kambe in view of Sato teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a cap with a suction pump suctions the nozzles and a normal wiping is executed in a case where the suction is completed (Sato, [0048], Note that capping/suction and wiping operations occur at different times, and thus it is necessarily the case that a normal wiping of the type disclosed by Kambe would at some point come after a suction operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the suction cap disclosed by Sato to the device disclosed by Kambe because doing so would allow for suction of the nozzles, thereby increasing cleaning power.
Regarding claim 20, Kambe in view of Sato teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second wiper to wipe ejection port arrays on the ejection port surface (Kambe, see fig. 9)
Regarding claim 21, Kambe in view of Sato teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the second wiper wipes the ejection port arrays in the first wiping operation and does not wipe the ejection port array in the second wiping operation (Kambe, see figs. 8, 9).
Regarding claim 22, Kambe in view of Sato teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls the wiper to execute the wide wiping sequence in a case where the printing apparatus receives an instruction (Note that this could mean any number of things. Here, Sato’s teaching that an intense cleaning instruction is entered when an amount of liquid discharged since a last wiping took place is being considered such an instruction).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kambe in view of Sato as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Maruta et al. (2021/0070041).
Regarding claim 23, Kambe in view of Sato teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 22. Kambe in view of Sato does not teach an operation panel configured to receive the instruction. Maruta teaches this (Maruta, [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the operation panel disclosed by Maruta to the device disclosed by Kambe in view of Sato so that a user could manually enter a wiping/cleaning command.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view 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, 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