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, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Neal (8,141,980) in view of Ogasawara (9,340,027).
Regarding claim 1, O’Neal teaches a recording device configured to perform
Borderless recording for forming an image up to an edge of a medium, the recording device comprising:
an ejecting head (fig. 2, item 202) configured to eject ink onto the medium (fig. 5, item 402);
a first ink absorber (fig. 1, item 112), during the borderless recording, disposed at a position facing the ejecting head and configured to absorb waste ink (col. 3, lines 55-64), of the ink, ejected to a position beyond the edge (see fig. 5);
a platen (figs. 9, 11, item 108) configured to support the first ink absorber (see fig. 11), and support the medium during the borderless recording (see fig. 9);
a first waste ink tray (fig. 11, item 722) including a first discharge port (fig. 11, item 1102) configured to discharge the waste ink (see fig. 11), the first waste ink tray being configured to receive the waste ink flowing out from the first ink absorber (see fig. 11); and
a discharge mechanism (fig. 11, item 1104) configured to discharge, from the first discharge port, the waste ink received by the first waste ink tray (see fig. 11), wherein
the first waste ink tray includes a plurality of inclined regions (fig. 11, note that there are any number of inclined regions, a first inclined region of the plurality of inclined regions has a first inclination direction towards the first discharge port and a second inclination direction towards another of the plurality of inclined regions (see fig. 11, note that either of the inclines could be said to have the first inclination, and the other of the inclines could be said to face the first), and
the first ink absorber comprises a contact portion (fig. 11, bottom portion of absorbent 112) hanging downwardly through an opening in the platen to contact one of the first inclined region and the second inclined region (see fig. 11, Note that any of the inclined regions can be said to include horizontal ledges within item 722. That is, all regions within item 722 are include inclined portions).
O’Neal does not teach wherein the first inclined region comprising a plurality of grooves formed in the first inclination direction and extending in a first inclination direction of the first inclined region. Ogasawara teaches this (Ogasawara, see fig. 5, Note grooves 32 in inclined regions 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the grooves disclosed by Ogasawara to the inclined regions disclosed by O’Neal because doing so would help facilitate the smooth transport of waste liquid toward the discharge port.
.
Regarding claim 2, O’Neal in view of Ogasawara teaches the recording device according to claim 1, comprising a transport unit (O’Neal, fig. 9, item 104) configured to transport the medium in a transport direction (O’Neal, fig. 9, direction along rollers), wherein
the first waste ink tray includes, as the plurality of inclined regions, a first inclined surface inclined in the transport direction and a second inclined surface inclined in a width direction intersecting the transport direction (O’Neal, fig. 9, item 104).
Regarding claim 4, O’Neal in view of Ogasawara teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein the discharge mechanism includes a waste ink storage unit (O’Neal, col. 7, lines 12-20) configured to store the waste ink, and a first tube (O’Neal, fig. 11, item 1104) coupling the first discharge port and the waste ink storage unit (O’Neal, fig. 11).
Regarding claim 5, O’Neal in view of Ogasawara teaches the recording device according to claim 4, wherein the discharge mechanism includes a pump (fig. 9, item 59) configured to accelerate a flow of the waste ink from the first discharge port to the waste ink storage unit via the first tube ([0033]).
Regarding claim 8, O’Neal in view of Ogasawara teaches the recording device according to claim 2, wherein a width of the first waste ink tray when viewed from the transport direction is narrower than a width of the first ink absorber when viewed from the transport direction (O’Neal, see fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, O’Neal in view of Ogasawara teaches the recording device according to claim 1, comprising a second ink absorber provided around the first waste ink tray when viewed from an ejection direction of the ink (O’Neal, see fig. 11).
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neal in view of Ogasawara as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Takahashi (6,802,591).
Regarding claim 6, O’Neal in view of Ogasawara teaches the recording device according to claim 5. O’Neal in view of Ogasawara does not teach wherein
the ejecting head is configured to eject the ink onto the medium while reciprocating, the ejecting head being located at a home position during non-recording,
a second waste ink tray configured to receive the ink ejected from the ejecting head as waste ink is provided at the home position (see fig. 3),
the second waste ink tray includes a second discharge port,
the discharge mechanism includes a second tube coupling the second discharge port and the waste ink storage unit, and
the pump also has a role of accelerating a flow of the waste ink from the second discharge port to the waste ink storage unit via the second tube. Takahashi teaches a capping member with a second waste ink tray at a home position, wherein the capping member has a pump and a second tube (Takahashi, col. 8, lines 58-67). It would have been obvious to add a suction cap in a home position, as disclosed by Takahashi, to the device disclosed by O’Neal because doing so would allow for prevention of ink drying and maintenance suction at the home position during a non-printing mode. Upon addition of the cap of Takahashi to the device of O’Neal in view of Ogasawara, it would have been obvious to use the same pump and the same waste ink storage unit to transport and store all waste ink deposited in the device.
Regarding claim 10, O’Neal in view of Ogasawara teaches the recording device according to claim 1. O’Neal in view of Ogasawara does not teach an electrode plate including an electrode terminal coupled to a wiring line, the electrode plate being provided at a position between the platen and the first ink absorber, and a third ink absorber provided along the wiring line. Takahashi teaches this (Takahashi, see figs. 11, 12, Note electrode 120 along wiring line, and not that any portion of absorber can be said to be a third absorber provided along the wiring line). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the electrode plate disclosed by Takahashi to the device disclosed by O’Neal in view of Ogasawara because doing so would allow for attraction of ink mist toward the absorbent, thereby preventing unwanted deposition of mist on the print medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the rejection does not disclose a “platen” or that the absorbent is “hanging downwardly through an opening in the platen,” but Applicant’s argument stops there without any more clarification. In other words, it is not clear based on Applicant’s contention exactly how the O’Neal is believed to be deficient.
Examiner maintains the claimed language is disclosed. As explained in the rejection, O’Neal teaches a platen 108 in which a waste ink tray 722 is nested and an absorbent 112 that “hangs downwardly through an opening in the platen.” That is, the waste ink tray hangs downwardly in the opening in the platen, and the absorbent hangs downwardly through the opening in the waste ink tray, and thus the ink absorbent hangs downwardly through an opening in the platen.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 2, Examiner maintains the limitations are met. Note that if the transportation direction is defined as the extension direction of wall 716, and the direction of the planes one either of first and second inclined surfaces is taken to be the claimed width direction, the limitation is met. In other words, the claimed width direction has not been defined with specificity, and as such, any direction intersecting the transportation direction can be taken to be “the width direction.”
The argument proceeds to state, “However, ‘item 104’ are a plurality of roller used to fabricate an ink tray.” It is not understood what this is intended to mean. The tray has been defined as item 722.
As an aside, it should be noted for future prosecution that Ogasawara teaches inclined regions 32-34 that mirror those of the figures in the present application.
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, 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