Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/189,477

LIQUID EJECTION DEVICE CONTROL METHOD AND LIQUID EJECTION DEVICE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 24, 2023
Priority
Mar 25, 2022 — JP 2022-049468
Examiner
VALENCIA, ALEJANDRO
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
4 (Final)
43%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
49%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 43% of resolved cases
43%
Career Allowance Rate
571 granted / 1341 resolved
-25.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
152 currently pending
Career history
1493
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.9%
+13.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1341 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the absorbent” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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) 1-7, 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al. (2005/0275687) in view of Ishii et al. (2022/0305792) (2014/0035996) and Ibe et al. (9,266,334) and Moscato et al. (10,137,691). Regarding claims 1 and 12, Furuichi teaches a liquid ejection device control method for a liquid ejection device including a liquid ejection head (fig. 2, item 22) having a nozzle surface (fig. 3) in which a plurality of nozzle arrays (fig. 3, see arrays) is formed by a plurality of nozzles for ejecting liquid (see fig. 3), the liquid ejection head being configured to record an image on a medium by ejecting liquid from the plurality of nozzles (see figs. 1, 2); and a wiping section (fig. 3, item 143) provided at a position adjacent to a support section supporting the medium (see figs. 1, 2, note platen), wherein the liquid ejection head is movable relative to the wiping section the plurality of nozzle arrays extend in the sub-scanning direction and are formed at predetermined intervals ([0059], 1 cm) in the scanning direction (see figs. 2, 3); the control method comprising: performing flushing which includes: ejecting liquid from the plurality of nozzles of the plurality of nozzle arrays to overlap in the sub-scanning direction within a receiving region (see fig. 8A); ejecting liquid from each of the plurality of nozzle arrays in the receiving region at intervals in the scanning direction that are smaller than the predetermined intervals ([0059]-[0061], see fig. 8A, Note that the interval between arrays is 1 cm. Note that printing is 1200 dpi, which is 473 dots per centimeter, distance d is 15 pixels/dots and distance d1 is 300 pixels/dots). Furuichi does not disclose wherein the wiping section has an absorbent member configured to absorb liquid or the wiping section is set with, at different positions from each other, a wiping region in which the absorbent member wipes the nozzle surface of the liquid ejection head during relative movement in the sub-scanning direction and a receiving region in which the absorbent member receives liquid discharged from the plurality of nozzle arrays. Ishii teaches this (Ishii, see fig. 9, Note that the wiping and liquid discharge regions are necessarily at different positions on the wiping web). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to flush the nozzles of the printhead on an absorbent wiping web, as disclosed by Ishii, instead of on print media, as disclosed by Furuichi, because doing so would reduce paper waste while maintaining nozzle health. In other words, Furuichi does not teach a wiping web, and thus flushing must take place on print media. However, upon adding a wiping web of the type disclosed by Ishii, not only would wiping be more thorough but also flushing could be carried out on the web instead of on print media. Furuichi in view of Ishii does not teach wherein the wiping region and at least a portion of the receiving region are disposed outside of a case of the wiping section. Ibe teaches wherein an entire wiping surface of an absorbent is disposed outside of a case of a wiping section (Ibe, see fig. 5, Note entire contact portion of wiping absorbent 31 located outside of case 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the wiping member of Furuichi in view of Ishii in the manner disclosed by Ibe because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known wiping member arrangement for another to yield predictable results. Upon combination of prior art teachings, the resultant device would have both of a wiping region and a receiving region disposed outside of the case of the wiping section. Furuichi in view of Ishii and Ibe does not teach wherein the liquid ejection head is movable in a sub-scanning direction. Moscato teaches this (Moscato, see fig. 1, Note that print unit 102 is moveable along both of axes 116 and 114 into and out of engagement with maintenance unit 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for the liquid ejection head disclosed by Furuichi in view of Ishii and Ibe to be moved along two axes instead of one, as disclosed by Moscato, because doing so would allow for greater freedom of movement of the head while also eliminating the need for the wiper to be moved to engage the head. Regarding claim 2, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato and Ibe teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 1, wherein the flushing includes ejecting liquid from the plurality of nozzle arrays to overlap on a first position (Furuichi, fig. 8A, note that the entire shown area is being taken to the first position, and not that an observer would see the liquid as overlapping on a medium) in the receiving region and after the amount of liquid ejected to the first position reaches a threshold, ejecting liquid from the plurality of nozzle arrays to overlap on a second position different from the first position in the scanning direction (Furuichi, [0109], see fig. 16, Note that each nozzle array ejects ink overlappingly at area 1600). Regarding claim 3, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 1, wherein the liquid ejection device further includes a pressurizing section (Furuichi, fig. 4, item 226) configured to pressurize liquid in the nozzles of each of the plurality of nozzle arrays (Furuichi, [0049]), the control method further comprising: performing pressurized discharge, the pressurized discharge including at a first pressurized discharge timing, discharging liquid to a first region of the absorbent member by using the pressurizing section to pressurize liquid in a plurality of nozzles of a nozzle array that is the target of a first pressurized discharge and at a second pressurized discharge timing, discharging liquid to a second region different from the first region of the absorbent member by using the pressurizing section to pressurize liquid in a plurality of nozzles of a nozzle array that is the target of a second pressurized discharge, wherein at least a part of the second region overlaps with the first region as viewed in the scanning direction; and the second region does not overlap with the first region as viewed in the sub-scanning direction (Furuichi, see fig. 8, Note that any plurality of nozzles of either of the shown nozzle arrays can be chosen selectively to meet the limitations. Further, the flushing shown is executed periodically making for different timings and different positions for flushing each of the nozzles on the absorbent member. Moreover, overlapping regions can be selected to meet the limitations. Any two dots of different colors can be chosen to meet the limitation). Regarding claim 4, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the first pressurized discharge and the second pressurized discharge is performed while feeding the absorbent member in a feed direction (Ishii, [0032], Note that the absorbent may be conveyed during discharges or between discharges. Note that “while feeding” could be reasonably construed to mean “during maintenance,” in which case the discharges are necessarily executed while feeding the absorbent member). Regarding claim 5, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 3, wherein the flushing is performed so that liquid is ejected to a position not overlapping with the first region and the second region as viewed in the scanning direction (Furuichi, see fig. 8, Note that any plurality of nozzles of either of the shown nozzle arrays can be chosen selectively to meet the limitations. Further, the flushing shown is executed periodically making for different timings and different positions for flushing each of the nozzles on the absorbent member. Moreover, overlapping regions can be selected to meet the limitations. Any two dots of different colors can be chosen to meet the limitation). Regarding claim 6, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 5, wherein the flushing is performed from one end side to the other end side of the absorbent member in the scanning direction (Ishii, [0032], Note that the flushing necessarily covers an entire width of the absorbent web so as to reduce web waste). Regarding claim 7, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 5, wherein the pressurized discharge is performed from one end side to the other end side of the absorbent member in the scanning direction (Ishii, [0032], Note that the flushing necessarily covers an entire width of the absorbent web so as to reduce web waste). Regarding claim 10, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 1, wherein the absorbent member is movable in a feed direction, the control method further comprising: after liquid is discharged from the plurality of nozzles to the absorbent member, moving an unused region of the absorbent member, which has not received the liquid, to the wiping region by moving the absorbent member in a direction opposite to the feed direction, and wiping the nozzle surface with the wiping region (Ishii, [0032], Note that this is necessarily how the prior art functions). Regarding claims 13-16, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 1, wherein an area to perform preliminary ejection on an absorbent member can be changed from a first area to a second area when a threshold corresponding to how much liquid can be held in the first area is exceeded (Ishii, [0110]). Regarding claim 17, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 1, wherein the flushing is performed by the liquid ejection head moving in the scanning direction in a state where the absorbent member is not moving, and wiping the nozzle surface of the liquid ejection head with the absorbent member is performed in a state where the absorbent member is not moving and is pressed against the nozzle surface (Furuichi, Note that the head is moved to the wiping area, then the wiper is moved into contact with the head to press the head. Note that, upon replacement of the squeegee wiper with an absorbent roll wiper, only when the head was in the wiper zone, the absorbent would be pressed against the head at least momentarily before being activated). Regarding claim 18, Furuichi in view of Ishii, Ibe and Moscato teaches the teaches the liquid ejection device control method according to claim 1, wherein when the flushing is performed, an ejection trace in which a plurality of linear traces extending along the sub-scanning direction are arranged at intervals in the scanning direction is formed on the absorbent member (Furuichi, fig. 8A, Note that lines of dots of each color are formed during flushing. Upon combination of references, once flushing would take place on the absorbent member, the traces would be formed on the absorbent member). 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, 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 1 earlier event
Dec 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 18, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 02, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12605944
PRINTER, CONTROL METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM STORING COMPUTER-READABLE INSTRUCTIONS
4y 4m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12600127
INKJET ASSEMBLY, INKJET PRINTING APPARATUS AND INKJET PRINTING METHOD FOR USE IN PREPARATION OF DISPLAY COMPONENT
2y 7m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583238
PAPER SUPPLY CONTROL DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576644
RECORDING DEVICE AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING RECORDING DEVICE
2y 6m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570101
RECORDING DEVICE
2y 1m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
43%
Grant Probability
49%
With Interview (+6.0%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1341 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month