DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 17 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. It is not clear as to what “air supplied to the air nozzle is suctioned from the gutter and the nozzle” is intended to refer. It would seem that air at the gutter and air at the nozzle are different things. Further, it is not clear what is doing suctioning. Clarification 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) 7, 8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (2007/0252863) in view of Nagamine et al. (2009/0189964), Suzuki et al. (2009/0015632) and Iwasaki et al. (6,172,688).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches the inkjet recording device comprising:
a main body unit (fig. 1, everything shown except for head mounting units 116-120, recovery container and liquid amount sensor);
a head mounting unit (fig. 4, see head mounting unit);
a recovery container (fig. 4, note that unlabeled drain leads to a recovery container);
a print head unit (fig. 4, item 108),
wherein the main body unit includes
an ink container (fig. 1, note that an ink container is necessarily present) that contains ink for printing on a print object (see fig. 1), and
a solvent container ([0028], note that there is necessarily a solvent container) that contains a solvent ([0028]),
the print head unit includes a nozzle ([0034]) connected to the ink container to discharge the pressurized and supplied ink ([0034]),
the head mounting unit (fig. 1, item 116) configured to allow the print head unit to be mounted on the head mounting unit is further provided outside of the main body (see fig. 1, note that “outside of the main body” would mean any number of things),
the head mounting unit includes the recovery container ([0041]) that recovers a cleaning liquid used to clean the print head unit ([0041], see fig. 4), and
a cleaning nozzle (fig. 4, item 404) configured to spray the cleaning liquid toward components inside the print head unit ([0042], Note that solvent is sprayed toward the nozzle surface and the interiors of the nozzles themselves, i.e, components inside the print head unit), wherein
the control unit is also configured to:
verify mounting of the print head unit by using sensor information provided by the head mounting unit ([0052]).
Sun does not teach a charging electrode that charges ink particles discharged from the nozzle, a deflection electrode that deflects the ink particles charged by the charging electrode, and a gutter that recovers the ink not used for the printing. Nagamine teaches this (Nagamine, [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the cleaning system disclosed by Sun to the continuous printing head disclosed by Nagamine because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device in need of improvement to yield predictable results. In other words, while Sun is directed to a nozzle cleaner for an on-demand inkjet device, it would have been obvious to adapt such a cleaning device to other types of inkjet devices including a continuous inkjet device of the type disclosed by Nagamine.
Sun also does not teach the amended claim language directed to the circulation paths, the gutter being located between the nozzle and the recovery container, the pump and the circulation of ink. Nagamine teaches this (Nagamine, [0015], see fig. 3, Note that inserting the print head 610 into a head mounting unit of the type disclosed by Sun would have the gutter between the nozzle and the recovery container). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a circulation control of the type disclosed by Nagamine to the device disclosed by Sun in view of Nagamine above because doing so would allow for circulation of ink, thereby keeping the ink fresh. Further, upon addition of this functionality, to perform such a functionality when the print head was at the head mounting unit would have been obvious because completing any maintenance processes at the head mounting unit would have been obvious, and circulation was a maintenance process.
Sun in view of Nagamine does not teach a liquid amount sensor that detects a liquid amount of the cleaning liquid accumulated in the recovery container. Suzuki teaches shutting down all operations of a printer when it is determined that an amount of waste liquid in a waste liquid recovery container exceeds a threshold amount and issuing an alert to a user that a replacement of the waste liquid recovery container is required (Suzuki, [0102], see fig. 23). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of invention to add the sensor disclosed by Suzuki to the device disclosed by Sun in view of Nagamine because doing so would allow for monitoring of waste liquid levels in the recovery container and preventing overflow of waste liquid from the container by facilitating removal of waste liquid or replacement of the container altogether.
Sun in view of Nagamine and Suzuki does not teach periodically circulating ink at a position sealed by a head mounting unit. Iwasaki teaches this (Iwasaki, col. 22, lines 45-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to circulate the ink in the printhead periodically at a maintenance position, as disclosed by Iwasaki in the device disclosed by Sun in view of Nagamine and Suzuki because doing so would ensure the ink in the printhead remained fresh, thereby ensuring high print quality.
Upon combination of Iwasaki with Sun in view of Nagamine and Suzuki, the resultant device would determine the presence of the printhead in the mounting unit and then circulate ink in the printhead, and this would occur periodically.
Regarding claim 8, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein the head mounting unit includes head detection means (Sun, [0052]) for detecting whether or not the print head is mounted (Sun, [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein the head mounting unit regularly and automatically performs head cleaning control (Sun, [0052], Note that a cleaning would need to occur regularly, or else the printer would not function properly, and the cleaning routine is executed by the printer itself, making it automatic).
Regarding claim 11, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein when the print head is mounted on the head mounting unit, the ink is ejected to perform an ink circulation (Sun, see fig. 8, step 508).
Regarding claim 12, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 10, wherein when an amount of the ink or the cleaning liquid in the recovery container is detected to be greater than a certain value by the overflow detection, control is performed to stop ink ejection or head cleaning (Suzuki, [0102], see fig. 23).
Regarding claim 13, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein the head mounting unit includes a bottom portion (Sun, fig. 4, portion of parkin station in which drain 406 is disposed) in which a communication hole (Sun, fig. 4, item 406) for passing the cleaning liquid is formed (Sun, [0055]), and a peripheral wall portion (Sun, fig. 4, items 302) extending upward from the bottom portion (Sun, see fig. 4), and the head mounting unit has a structure in which a tip portion (Sun, fig. 4, item 150) of the print head unit is surrounded by the peripheral wall portion when the print head unit is mounted (Sun, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein control is performed to suction solvent gas from at least one of the gutter and the nozzle of the print head unit during a cleaning of the print head unit (Sun, see fig. 4, Note that “solvent gas” is being taken to be bubbles created in the solvent during spraying, which are suctioned out of drain 406 with liquid solvent).
Regarding claim 15, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein solvent that has hit the gutter is suctioned from the gutter and is recovered in the ink container of the main body (Nagamine, [0166]).
Regarding claim 16, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein the nozzle, the charging electrode, the deflection electrode, and the gutter are disposed inside the printhead (Nagamine, see figs. 2, 15)
Regarding claim 17, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 8, wherein during a head drying proves, the air is suctioned from the gutter and the nozzle to reduce an amount of solvent gas discharged to a periphery of the head cleaning unit (Nagamine, [0166], Note that applying the air suction of Nagamine to the interior of Sun’s head mounting structure after cleaning would result in a device that meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 7, wherein the inkjet recording device further comprises a cleaning nozzle configured to eject solvent toward at least one of the deflection electrode and the nozzle, and the control unit is configured to perform a cleaning operation by ejecting the solvent from the cleaning nozzle when the print head is mounted on the head mounting unit (Sun, [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 18, wherein the control unit is further configured to perform the ink-circulation control periodically after completion of the cleaning operation (Note that cleaning operations and circulation operations occur any number of times in the lifespan of a printer, and thus there are necessarily any number of instances of circulation after cleaning, even if there are intervening events).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Koga (2016/0096365).
Regarding claim 9, Sun in view of Nagamine, Suzuki and Iwasaki teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 8, wherein the head detection means detects the mounting of the print head using a sensor (Sun, [0052]). Sun in view of Nagamine in view of Suzuki does not teach wherein the sensor uses a magnetic force. Koga teaches wherein a magnetic sensor is used to determine a position of a movable printhead (Koga, [0185]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a magnetic sensor of the type disclosed by Koga for the sensor disclosed by Sun in view of Nagamine in view of Suzuki because doing so would amount to combining a known sensor type with a known device that uses a sensor to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 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