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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/3/2024, 6/10/2024, and 1/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 and Group A in the reply filed on 10/7/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all inventive groups can be searched simultaneously, and that additional applications are not in the public interest and is burdensome to the USPTO. This is not found persuasive because each of the indicated groups does, in fact, require substantially different search strategies, as indicated on pages 3-4 of the Restriction Requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Groups 2/B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16:
These claims require the control unit to determine, “based on an elapsed time from a time point at which the anomaly is detected to a time point at which the anomaly is resolved, the frequency of circulation in the intermittent circulation to be executed by the circulation unit after the anomaly is resolved.” However, Examiner was unable to locate such a teaching in the written description.
Rather, the most relevant portion of Applicant’s written description teaches the determination of one of recovery operations A-C based on the elapsed time from a time point at which the anomaly is detected to a time point at which the anomaly is resolved (see paragraphs 149-156 & Fig. 11). However, the written description appears to be silent as to the use of such an elapsed time to determine “the frequency of circulation in the intermittent circulation.”
Should Applicant feel that the written description is, in fact, supportive of this claim limitation, please provide specific citations within the originally filed description in Applicant’s next response.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 8:
This claim states that “in a case where the nozzle surface is capped by the cap unit, the control unit causes the circulation unit to perform circulation …” However parent claim 1 only performs circulation in a case that the “cap unit cannot cap the nozzle surface,” and specifically “does not cause the circulation unit to circulate liquid …” when the cap unit can cap the nozzle surface. Therefore, this claim appears to contradict the limitations set forth in parent claim 1.
Regarding claims 9-10:
These claims also fail to meet the requirements of this statute, at least for their dependency on claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogimura (US 2013/0076822 A1) in view of Govyadinov et al. (US 2017/0313063 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Ogimura discloses a liquid discharge apparatus comprising:
a discharge head (26) including a nozzle (26b) for discharging liquid (Fig. 3), an energy generation element (23c) for generating energy used to discharge liquid (paragraph 51), and a pressure chamber (“ink chamber”) that is a space facing the energy generation element (paragraph 51);
a cap unit (36) configured to cap a nozzle surface of the discharge head where the nozzle is formed (Fig. 4); and
a control unit (50) for controlling the discharge head, wherein
in a case where anomaly is detected during discharge operation of the discharge head (Fig. 8) and the cap unit cannot cap the nozzle surface (80->1 @ S4: Fig. 8), the control unit causes the discharge head to enter a standby state (paragraphs 83, 96 & Fig. 8) and
in a case where anomaly is detected during discharge operation of the discharge head (Fig. 8) and the cap unit can cap the nozzle surface (1->80 @ S4: Fig. 8), the control unit does not cause circulation of liquid (paragraph 93 & Fig. 8).
Ogimura does not expressly disclose that the liquid discharge apparatus comprises a circulation unit configured to circulate liquid through a circulation flow path of the discharge head.
However, Govyadinov et al. disclose a liquid discharge apparatus comprising a discharge head (114) and a circulation unit (222) configured to circulate liquid through a circulation flow path (220) including a pressure chamber (202) of the discharge head (Fig. 2),
wherein the circulation unit is controlled to circulate liquid through the circulation flow path in an uncapped standby state (“decap time”) so as to reduce ink clogging and improve nozzle health (paragraph 38-45 & Fig. 6A-B).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ogimura’s apparatus to perform circulation during a decap time, as suggested by Govyadinov et al., while the cap unit cannot cap the nozzle surface.
Regarding claim 5:
Ogimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Ogimura also disclose that, in a case where the anomaly is resolved, the control unit performs printing (Fig. 8); and Govyadinov et al. also disclose that, in a case that the uncapped standby state ends, the circulation unit stops liquid circulation (Fig. 6A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious that Ogimura’s control unit, as modified, would stop liquid circulation in a case where the anomaly is resolved.
Regarding claim 6:
Ogimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Govyadinov et al. also disclose execution of intermittent circulation in which circulation and stop are alternately performed between a time point at which uncapped standby starts and at time at which the uncapped standby ends (Figs. 6A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious that Ogimura’s control unit, as modified, would cause execution of intermittent circulation between a time point at which the anomaly is detected and a time point at which the anomaly is resolved.
Regarding claim 7:
Ogimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 6, and Govyadinov et al. also disclose that, in the intermittent circulation, a stop time period (at least the time period of decap time 630 before execution of circulation 620) is longer than a circulation time period (Fig. 6A-B).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogimura as modified by Govyadinov et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2019/0001671 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Ogimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly comprise a circulation flow path that includes a first pressure adjuster and a second pressure adjuster.
However, Yamada et al. disclose a liquid discharge apparatus (Fig. 3) having a circulation flow path that allows a discharge head (print head 3) to keep the ink pressure within a predetermined range (paragraph 32), the circulation flow path including:
a first pressure adjuster (regulator H of pressure control unit 230) capable of adjusting the pressure of liquid (paragraph 25),
a supply flow path (Fig. 3) for supplying liquid from the first pressure adjuster to the pressure chamber (Fig. 3),
a second pressure adjuster (regulator L of pressure control unit 230) capable of adjusting the pressure of liquid (paragraph 25),
a collection flow path (Fig. 3) for collecting liquid from the pressure chamber to the second pressure adjuster (Fig. 3).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize, Ogimua’s modified apparatus, a circulation flow path such as that taught by Yamada et al.
Regarding claim 3:
Ogimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 2, and Ogimura also disclose that the discharge head discharges liquid while moving in a predetermined direction (paragraph 47 & Fig. 2), and
Govyadinov et al. also disclose that the circulation unit is comprised within the discharge head (Fig. 2); and
Yamada et al. also disclose that the circulation flow path is comprised within with the discharge head (Fig. 3).
Therefore, in Ogimura et al.’s modified apparatus, the circulation flow path and the circulation unit move in the predetermined direction together with the discharge head.
Regarding claim 4:
Ogimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 3, and Ogimura also disclose that the control unit determines whether the nozzle surface is capped by the cap unit based on position information of the discharge head in the predetermined direction and information related to operation of a cam mechanism for moving up and down the cap unit (paragraphs 58-59, 93).
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogimura as modified by Govyadinov et al., as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fukasawa et al. (US 2019/0001670 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 15:
Ogimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 6, but does not expressly disclose that a stop time period of circulation in the intermittent circulation is based on at least one of temperature and humidity in the vicinity of the nozzle.
However, Govyadinov et al. do also disclose that a stop time period of circulation in the intermittent circulation (“recirculation frequency”) may be optimized for each printing system (paragraph 43).
Moreover, Fukasawa et al. teach that controls a circulation operation to keep the inside of a discharge head (8) in a printable state in accordance with the installation environment by adjusting a stop time period of circulation based on a temperature and humidity (paragraphs 96, 118-119).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to control the intermittent circulation of Ogimura’s modified apparatus in the manner taught by Fukusawa et al., so as to keep the inside of the discharge head in a printable state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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 11 appears to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious a liquid discharge apparatus is which “the control unit controls the first circulation unit and the second circulation unit so that a time period in which circulation is performed and a time period in which circulation are stopped are different between the first circulation flow path and the second circulation flow path.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 11, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Douglas 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853