DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al. (WO 2021048953 A1), hereinafter Ishihara, in view of Atsushi (JP 2019181926 A). All paragraph numbers referring to Ishihara and Atsushi are taken from the previously attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Ishihara teaches a printing apparatus comprising: a carriage including: a head including a plurality of nozzles and configured to move in a first direction along a first axis, the plurality of nozzles being configured to discharge ink toward a medium and a light emission unit configured to emit ultraviolet light toward the medium (figs. 3-4, carriage 21, recording head 41, nozzle array 44, scanning direction Y, medium M, light irradiation device 50, paragraphs [0020]-[0023], [0031]-[0033]); and a control unit, wherein the light emission unit includes a first emission group and a second emission group arranged in a second direction, the second direction being a direction along a second axis intersecting the first axis, the first emission group is disposed at a position that overlaps with the plurality of nozzles in the first direction, the second emission group is disposed at a position that does not overlap with the plurality of nozzles in the first direction, and the control unit is configured to perform a first mode in which ultraviolet light is emitted from the first emission group and the second emission group, and a second mode in which ultraviolet light is not emitted from the first emission group and ultraviolet light is emitted from the second emission group, all emission groups that overlap the plurality of nozzles are part of the first emission group, and all emission groups that do not overlap the plurality of nozzles are part of the second emission group (figs. 4, 8A-10A, upstream irradiation unit 52, intermediate irradiation unit 53, downstream irradiation unit 54, control device 61, paragraphs [0048], [0088]-[0089], [0094]-[0096]).
Ishihara fails to teach or fairly suggest a light emission unit configured to move in the second direction relative to the head.
However, Atsushi teaches a light emission unit configured to move in a second direction relative to the head, the second direction being a direction along a second axis intersecting the first axis (figs. 4-7, irradiation units 411L and 411R, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], [0040]-[0041], [0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light emission unit of Atsushi into the printing apparatus of Ishihara in order to increase the unique configurations available to irradiate the medium.
Regarding claim 2, Ishihara as modified by Atsushi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and Atsushi further teaches the light emission unit is configured to move between a first relative position and a second relative position in the second direction (figs. 5-7, CPU 33, liquid ejection heads 300CL2 and 300CL4, irradiation unit 411L, paragraphs [0039]-[0046], [0046]-[0051], [0053]-[0062]), and Ishihara teaches the second relative position of the light emission unit, being a position wherein the first emission group is a position that overlaps with the plurality of nozzles in the first direction, and a position of the second emission group is a position that does not overlap with the plurality of nozzles in the first direction (figs. 4, 8A-10A, upstream irradiation unit 52, intermediate irradiation unit 53, downstream irradiation unit 54, control device 61, paragraphs [0048], [0088]-[0089], [0094]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 10, Ishihara teaches a printing method performed by a printing apparatus, the printing apparatus including: a carriage including: a head including a plurality of nozzles and configured to move in a first direction along a first axis, the plurality of nozzles being configured to discharge ink toward a medium and a light emission unit configured to emit ultraviolet light toward the medium (figs. 3-4, carriage 21, recording head 41, nozzle array 44, scanning direction Y, medium M, light irradiation device 50, paragraphs [0020]-[0023], [0031]-[0033]), the light emission unit including a first emission group and a second emission group arranged in a second direction, the second direction being a direction along a second axis intersecting the first axis, the first emission group being disposed at a position that overlaps with the plurality of nozzles in the first direction, the second emission group being disposed at a position that does not overlap with the plurality of nozzles in the first direction, the printing method comprising performing a first mode in which ultraviolet light is emitted from the first emission group and the second emission group, and a second mode in which ultraviolet light is not emitted from the first emission group and ultraviolet light is emitted from the second emission group, wherein all emission groups that overlap the plurality of nozzles are part of the first emission group, and all emission groups that do not overlap the plurality of nozzles are part of the second emission group (figs. 4, 8A-10A, upstream irradiation unit 52, intermediate irradiation unit 53, downstream irradiation unit 54, control device 61, paragraphs [0048], [0088]-[0089], [0094]-[0096]).
Ishihara fails to teach or fairly suggest a light emission unit configured to move in the second direction relative to the head.
However, Atsushi teaches a light emission unit configured to move in a second direction relative to the head, the second direction being a direction along a second axis intersecting the first axis (figs. 4-7, irradiation units 411L and 411R, paragraphs [0034]-[0037], [0040]-[0041], [0047]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the light emission unit of Atsushi into the printing apparatus of Ishihara to carry out the method of the claim in order to increase the unique configurations available to irradiate the medium.
Regarding claim 11, Ishihara as modified by Atsushi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, and Ishihara further teaches wherein the first emission group is disposed at a position that overlaps with all of the plurality of nozzles which overlap with the light emission unit in the first direction, and the second emission group is disposed at a position that does not overlap with any the plurality of nozzles in the first direction (figs. 4, 8A-10A, upstream irradiation unit 52, intermediate irradiation unit 53, downstream irradiation unit 54, lengths L1, L21-L23, paragraphs [0038]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 13, Ishihara as modified by Atsushi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, and Ishihara further teaches wherein at the second relative position of the light emission unit, a length of the second emission group in the second direction is longer than a length of the plurality nozzles in the second direction (fig. 4, upstream irradiation unit 52, intermediate irradiation unit 53, downstream irradiation unit 54, lengths L1, L21-L23, paragraphs [0038]-[0042]).
To further clarify, the intermediate irradiation unit 53 and the downstream irradiation unit 54 as taught by Ishihara reads on the second emission group, and the position of the irradiation unit 50 taught in at least fig. 4 and paragraphs [0038]-[0042] of Ishihara reads on the second relative position.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Atsushi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuzawa (US 2011/0074857 A1).
Ishihara as modified by Atsushi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, however Ishihara as modified by Atsushi fails to teach or fairly suggest a head movement velocity at which the head is moved in the first direction is settable to a first velocity and a second velocity slower than the first velocity and the control unit sets emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the light emission unit when the head movement velocity is the first velocity, to be higher than emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the light emission unit when the head movement velocity is the second velocity.
Mitsuzawa teaches a head movement velocity at which the head is moved in the first direction is settable to a first velocity and a second velocity slower than the first velocity and the control unit sets emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the light emission unit when the head movement velocity is the first velocity, to be higher than emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the light emission unit when the head movement velocity is the second velocity (fig. 5, irradiation amount and carriage moving velocity, paragraphs [0074]-[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the controller of Mitsuzawa into the printing apparatus of Ishihara to improve the accuracy when applying curing radiation and to prevent overexposure of the medium to radiation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is hereby allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fail to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, the second emission group further includes: a third emission group located adjacent to the first emission group in the second direction and a fourth emission group at an opposite side from the first emission group with the third emission group being interposed between the first emission group and the fourth emission group in the second direction, and the control unit is configured to perform a first mode in which ultraviolet light is emitted from the first emission group and the second emission group, and a second mode in which ultraviolet light is not emitted from the first emission group and ultraviolet light is emitted from the second emission group, and in the second mode, the light emission unit is controlled such that emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the third emission group is lower than emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the fourth emission group, and all emission groups that overlap the plurality of nozzles are part of the first emission group, and all emission groups that do not overlap the plurality of nozzles are part of the second emission group.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3-7, and 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding dependent claim 3, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, the control unit performs the first mode in a state where the light emission unit is at the first relative position, and performs the second mode in a state where the light emission unit is at the second relative position.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein the second emission group further includes: a third emission group located adjacent to the first emission group in the second direction and a fourth emission group at an opposite side from the first emission group with the third emission group being interposed between the first emission group and the fourth emission group in the second direction and in the second mode, the control unit controls the light emission unit such that emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the third emission group is lower than emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the fourth emission group.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein the second emission group further includes: a third emission group located adjacent to the first emission group in the second direction and a fourth emission group at an opposite side from the first emission group with the third emission group being interposed between the first emission group and the fourth emission group in the second direction, the number of times of printing pass is settable to a first pass number and a second pass number greater than the first pass number, the number of times of printing pass being the number of times that the head is moved in the first direction to perform printing to a unit area of the medium, when the number of times of printing pass is the first pass number, the control unit causes the third emission group and the fourth emission group to emit ultraviolet light, and when the number of times of printing pass is the second pass number, the control unit does not cause the third emission group to emit ultraviolet light, and causes the fourth emission group to emit ultraviolet light.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein the number of times of printing pass is settable to a first pass number and a second pass number greater than the first pass number, the number of times of printing pass being the number of times that the head is moved in the first direction to perform printing to a unit area of the medium and the control unit sets emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the light emission unit when the number of times of printing pass is the first pass number, to be higher than emission intensity of ultraviolet light emitted from the light emission unit when the number of times of printing pass is the second pass number.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein at the first relative position of the light emission unit, an entirety of the plurality of nozzles overlap with the light emission unit in the first direction and at the second relative position of the light emission unit, at least a portion of the plurality nozzles do not overlap with the light emission unit in the first direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 3, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 10 under Youm and claims 1-5, 9-10, and 12 under Atsushi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13 under Ishihara in view of Atsushi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As detailed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, Ishihara in view of Atsushi teaches the printing apparatus according to claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13, as they are presently recited.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under Youm in view of Mitsuzawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ishihara in view of Atsushi as detailed above in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsuchiya (US 2015/0224793 A1) teaches an inkjet printhead bearing arrangeable radiation units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853