DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (2020/0338884) in view of Kubo et al. (2010/0053257) and Nakano (10,414,166).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches a liquid discharge device comprising:
a tank (fig. 1, item 15) configured to store a liquid;
a head (fig. 1, item 4) having a plurality of nozzles (fig. 4, items 10) configured to discharge the liquid supplied from the tank, the plurality of nozzles forming a plurality of nozzle rows arranged in a first direction (see fig. 4, into page), the nozzle rows including a first subset of nozzles and a second subset of nozzles wherein the first subset and the second subset are exclusive and where the first subset of nozzles and the second subset of nozzles are arranged to discharge the liquid supplied from the tank (see fig. 7, note that the first set of nozzles is being taken to be the defective discharge nozzles that are flashed at S102, and the second subset of nozzles is being taken to be all other nozzles ejecting the same color ink from the same tank as the first subset of nozzles);
a first sensor (fig. 7, [0057], note that a sensor is necessarily present to sense whether each particular nozzle is defective or not) configured to:
output a first signal (fig. 7, S102); and
output a second signal (fig. 7, S101); and
a controller configured to:
based on receiving the first signal after receiving the second signal from the first sensor (see fig. 7), perform a first maintenance (fig. 7, S103) on the first subset of nozzles which does not include the second subset of nozzles (note that, as defined above, this is the case);
in a case a predetermined condition is satisfied (fig. 7, No at S104) after performing the first maintenance and before discharging the liquid from the plurality of nozzles onto a sheet, perform a second maintenance (fig. 7, S105) on the second subset of nozzle of the head (see fig. 7, note that the suction purge is performed on all nozzles, including the second subset of nozzles); and
after performing the first maintenance and the second maintenance, control the head to discharge the liquid from the plurality of nozzles onto the sheet (Note that this is the case).
Nakano ‘884 teaches wherein each of four liquid storage tanks corresponds with a single nozzle row, not with multiple nozzle rows. Kubo teaches wherein a single ink tank corresponds to two nozzle rows, i.e., a first subset of nozzle rows and a second subset of nozzle rows, on a single head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a printhead with more than one nozzle row, as disclosed by Kubo, instead of the single-nozzle-row head of Nakano ‘884 because doing so would allow for more droplets to be deposited in each printing scan, thereby increasing print speed and quality.
Upon combination, if a single defective nozzle was detected among all nozzles in both nozzle rows, flashing would be performed on that single nozzle, i.e., performing maintenance on the first subset of nozzle rows and not on the second subset of nozzle rows, and when the condition was satisfied, the second maintenance would be performed on all nozzles in both nozzle rows, i.e., both of the first and second subsets of nozzles. Further, note that for purposes of rejection, flashing a single nozzle within a single row is being taken as “performing maintenance on” that nozzle row.
Nakano ‘884 in view of Kubo does not disclose wherein the first sensor outputs signals in accordance with liquid levels. Nakano ‘166 teaches a first sensor (Nakano ‘166, cols. 17-18, lines 59-15) configured to output a signal in accordance with a liquid level of the liquid stored in the tank or of a cartridge supplying the liquid to the tank, the first sensor being configured to:
output a first signal (Nakano ‘166, fig. 7, signal corresponding to the third range) in a case the liquid level is at or above a first position (Nakano, fig. 7, reference value II); and
output a second signal (Nakano ‘166, fig. 7, signal corresponding to second or first range) in a case the liquid level is below the first position (Nakano ‘166, see fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add liquid level sensors of the type disclosed by Nakano to the cartridges disclosed by Nakano ‘884 because doing so would allow for monitoring the exact liquid levels in each of the cartridges, thereby facilitating more precise ink usage and reducing ink waste. That is, while Nakano ‘884 employs different maintenances techniques depending on whether a cartridge is new, used or unreplaced, it does not have a specific sensor for detecting liquid levels, and thus to add such a sensor to its flow would allow for more tailored maintenance routines.
Upon combination of references, the first maintenance S65 would be carried out either when a new cartridge was installed or the liquid level was sensed to be full or close to full, and the second maintenance would be executed on non-replaced cartridges and those where the liquid level was below the first position.
Note that, according to MPEP 2114, the manner of operating a device does not distinguish an apparatus from the prior art. Here, all claimed structural elements are disclosed by Nakano, and a number of functional steps have been added as manner of operating the structure. Note that this logic applies to all other claims.
Regarding claim 2, Nakano ‘884 in view Kubo of Nakano ‘166 teaches the liquid discharge device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of nozzle rows has an exhaust port (Nakano ‘166, fig. 3, item 13yb), and wherein the controller is configured to perform a maintenance process of the head comprising:
suction purge for sucking the nozzles in the nozzle row (Nakano ‘166, see fig. 3); and
exhaust purge for sucking the exhaust port of the nozzle row (Nakano ‘166, see fig. 3), and
wherein in the performing of the first maintenance, the controller is configured to perform at least one of the suction purge and the exhaust purge for the first subset of nozzle rows which does not include the second subset of nozzle rows (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 8, Nakano ‘884 in view Kubo of Nakano ‘166 teaches the liquid discharge device according to claim 1, wherein after performing the first maintenance, in a case a predetermined time has elapsed since receiving the first signal from the first sensor, the controller is configured to perform the second maintenance (Nakano ‘166, col. 8, lines 57-67).
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano ‘884 in view Kubo of Nakano ‘166 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of official notice.
Regarding claim 3, Nakano ‘884 in view Kubo of Nakano ‘166 teaches the liquid discharge device according to claim 1. Nakano ‘166 does not expressly teach
a second sensor configured to:
output a third signal in a case the liquid level is at or above a second position, the second position being higher than the first position; and
output a fourth signal in a case the liquid level is below the second position, wherein after performing the first maintenance, based on receiving the third signal from the second sensor, the controller is configured to perform the second maintenance.
Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to implement the three-range liquid level detection technique shown in Nakano ‘166, Figure 7 with two sensors. That is, the three-range approach would have required two sensors to implement. When both sensors were ON, the reading would be in the first range, when one sensor was ON and one was OFF, the reading would be in the second range, and when both sensors were OFF, the reading would be in the third range. Thus, the first sensor would deliver first and second signals for ON and OFF states, and the seconds sensor would deliver third and fourth signals for ON and OFF states.
Regarding claim 4, Nakano ‘884 in view Kubo of Nakano ‘166 in view of official notice teaches the liquid discharge device according to claim 3, further comprising: a notification device (Nakano ‘166, fig. 6, item 60), wherein after performing the first maintenance, based on not receiving the third signal from the second sensor, the controller is configured to operate the notification device (Nakano ‘166, fig. 8B, S11).
Regarding claim 5, Nakano ‘884 in view Kubo of Nakano ‘166 in view of official notice teaches the liquid discharge device according to claim 4, wherein after operating the notification device, the controller is configured to:
based on receiving the first signal from the first sensor, not to repeat the first maintenance; and based on receiving the third signal from the second sensor, to perform the second maintenance (Nakano ‘166, see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Nakano ‘884 in view Kubo of Nakano ‘166 teaches the liquid discharge device according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to perform a third maintenance comprising performing a maintenance on all of the plurality of nozzle rows (see claim 1 rejection, note that all of the maintenance is performed on all nozzle rows), and
wherein in the performing of the third maintenance, the controller is configured to: based on receiving the third signal from the second sensor, perform the maintenance with a liquid having a first amount; and based on receiving the fourth signal from the second sensor and the first signal from the first sensor, perform the maintenance with a liquid having a second amount, the second amount being smaller than the first amount, in order to perform the third maintenance with the liquid supplied from the tank (Nakano ‘166, see figs. 8, 9, Note that a different liquid amount is calculated for each ink level of ink remaining so as to conserve ink).
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
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