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) 1-3, 5-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (20070252863) in view of Otte (2011/0221834), Suzuki (2019/0193405) and White et al. (6,355,114).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches an inkjet recording device comprising:
a main body (fig. 1, everything shown except for parking stations 116,118,120);
a print head (fig. 4, item 108),
wherein the main body includes an ink container (see fig. 1, note that each head 108 must have an ink container from which it receives ink) containing ink for printing on an object to be printed and supplying the ink to the print head, and a solvent container ([0042], note that there is necessarily a solvent container) containing a solvent and supplying the solvent to the print head ([0049]), and
the print head includes a nozzle (fig. 4, item 152) connected to the ink container and ejecting ink supplied under pressure (see fig. 1); and
a head mounting unit (fig. 1, item 116/118/120, note that parking units are separate physical structures from all other components) configured separately from the main body unit so that the print head can be mounted (see fig. 4A),
wherein the head mounting unit has a print head insertion portion (fig. 4A, item 302) for mounting the print head (see fig. 4A), and a head detection portion ([0052], sensors) for detecting whether or not the print head is inserted into the print head insertion portion ([0052]).
Sun does not teach a charging electrode for charging the ink particles ejected from the nozzle, a deflection electrode that deflects the ink particles charged by the charging electrode, and a gutter that collects ink not used for printing. Otte teaches this (Otte, [0025], [0043], Note charge electrode 8, deflection electrode 20 and gutter 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the parking structures and solvent cleaning approach disclosed by Sun to the continuous printhead disclosed by Otte because doing so would amount to combining a known print head cleaning technique with a known type of print head to obtain predictable results.
Sun in view of Otte does not teach wherein the head mounting unit includes a container portion that is connectable to a collection container disposed outside the main body for collecting the cleaning solution obtained by cleaning the print head, and a container detector disposed at a lower end of the head mounting unit configured to detect whether or not the collection container is connected to the container connection portion; and
wherein a cleaning is interrupted when the container detector detects that the collection container is not connected to a connection point, and
wherein an operation display that accepts a cleaning instruction for the print head and after receiving the cleaning instruction, would be interrupted the cleaning when the container detector detects that the collection container is not connected to a head mounting unit. Suzuki teaches this (Suzuki, [0130], [0071], see figs. 4, 5, Note sensor 48 generally disposed at a lower end of item 42, which is equivalent to the lower end of Sun’s head mounting unit. Note that, taking paragraphs [0071] and [0131] together a cleaning instruction input by a user would necessarily be paused or interrupted when the sensor detected absence of the waste liquid tank). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a detector and cleaning interruption function, as disclosed by Suzuki, to the device disclosed by Sun in view of Otte because doing so would prevent the flow of waste cleaning liquid/ink produced during cleaning of the printhead to a collection container when the container was detached, thereby preventing waste liquid from reaching undesired areas of the printer.
Sun in view of Otte and Suzuki does not teach wherein the container connection portion and the collection container are configured such that an outer circumferential surface of the container portion is fitted into contact with an inner circumferential surface of the collection container. White teaches this (White, fig. 12, Note solvent cleaning system with threaded connection portion at bottom for receiving an outer circumferential portion of a collection container). 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 fitted arrangement between the connection portion and the collection container, as disclosed by White, instead of the non-fitted arrangement disclosed by Sun in view of Otte and Suzuki because doing so would prevent leaks between the two portions.
Regarding claim 2, Sun in view of Otte, Suzuki and White teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 1, wherein the head mounting unit cleans the print head using the solvent supplied from the solvent container while the head detection portion detects that the print head is attached to the print head insertion portion (Sun, see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Sun in view of Otte, Suzuki and White teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 1, wherein, when the head detection portion does not detect that the print head is attached to the print head insertion portion, the head mounting unit controls so as not to wash the print head with the solvent supplied from the solvent container (Sun, [0052], Note also that if the print head is not detected, i.e., the print head is not in the parking structure, it is impossible to wash the printhead, and thus the claimed limitation is met regardless of detection or not).
Regarding claim 5, Sun in view of Otte, Suzuki and White teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 1, wherein the head mounting unit and the main body are connected by a cable, and a signal indicating whether or not the print head is inserted into the print head insertion portion, which is detected by the head detection portion, is sent to the main body (Sun, [0052], see figs. 1, 8, Note that because the print head purges when it is sensed by the detection unit at the parking structure, the main body must be alerted by the detection portion via a cable that the head is inserted in the parking structure).
Regarding claim 6, Sun in view of Otte, Suzuki and White teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 1, wherein the head mounting unit and the main body are connected by a cable, and a signal indicating whether or not the collection container is connected to the container connection portion, which is detected by the container detector, is sent to the main body (Note that, upon combination, this is necessarily the case. Because the head only purges ink when detected at the head mounting unit, and because the head would not purge unless the waste liquid container is connected to the head mounting unit, the head would need to know that the container was connected, and a cable would be the only way for that communication to happen).
Regarding claim 7, Sun in view of Otte, Suzuki and White teaches the inkjet recording device according to claim 1, wherein, when the head detection portion detects that the print head is not inserted into the print head insertion portion, an error output is performed (Note that “error output” is not defined in any way. Here, it is being taken to mean a negative output by the sensor indicating that the head is not parked in the parking structure).
Regarding claim 8, the solvent container disclosed by Sun is being taken to be part of the main body, and because the solvent container is necessarily connected to the head mounting unit via some sort of conduit, that conduit meets the limitation of the second conduit.
Regarding claim 10, note that, upon combination of references, this would be the case. That is, if a user entered a command at the display for a cleaning, and the collection tank was not detected as present, the display would necessarily display something other than that a cleaning had been initiation. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2114, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, and an apparatus claim covers what an apparatus is, not what an apparatus does. Here, the claimed language is purely functional and directed to what the apparatus does, not structurally what the apparatus is.
Regarding claim 11, Sun teaches a drying nozzle (Sun, [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, note that both of the container and head detections take place continuously as the detectors will always detect the container and head shortly after connection. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2114, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, and an apparatus claim covers what an apparatus is, not what an apparatus does. Here, the claimed language is purely functional and directed to what the apparatus does, not structurally what the apparatus is.
Regarding claim 13, note that the limitation is necessarily met. That is, Sun teaches a head detector for detecting when the print head is in the cleaning structure, and such a detector would serve no purpose if its detection was not tied to determining whether a cleaning was executable or not. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2114, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, and an apparatus claim covers what an apparatus is, not what an apparatus does. Here, the claimed language is purely functional and directed to what the apparatus does, not structurally what the apparatus is.
Regarding claim 14, note that the limitation is necessarily met. That is, there is necessarily a standby screen on the display that prompts a user to make any number of selections, and such a standby screen would be reverted to after a cleaning. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2114, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, and an apparatus claim covers what an apparatus is, not what an apparatus does. Here, the claimed language is purely functional and directed to what the apparatus does, not structurally what the apparatus is.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Otte, Suzuki and White as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ott et al. (5,195,566).
Regarding claim 9, Sun in view of Otte and Suzuki does not teach the seal arrangement claimed. Ott teaches this (Ott. See fig. 1, Note seal below the top of the mounting unit). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the mounting unit seal disclosed by Ott instead of that disclosed by Sun in view of Otte and Suzuki because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known sealing arrangement for another to obtain predictable results.
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, 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