DETAILED ACTION
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 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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washizawa (2021/0268816).
Regarding claim 1, Washizawa teaches a liquid ejection device comprising:
a head (fig. 2, item 32) including a nozzle surface (see fig. 2) in which a nozzle is opened, the head being configured to eject liquid from the nozzle (see fig. 4);
a standby cap (fig. 2, item 55a) configured to cover the nozzle by coming into contact with the head (see fig. 2);
a receiving unit (fig. 2, item 52) configured to receive the liquid ejected from the nozzle; and
a maintenance unit (fig. 2, item 58/59/57) configured to perform maintenance of the head, wherein
the head moves in a first area (fig. 2, area to the X1 direction of printing area 70 including and outside of the housing 42), a second area (fig. 2, area to the X2 direction of printing area 70 including and outside of the housing 42), and a printing area (fig. 2, area corresponding to item 70) by moving in a scanning direction (fig. 2, X direction), and performs printing on a medium by ejecting the liquid onto the medium while moving in the printing area (see fig. 2),
the printing area is located between the first area and the second area in the scanning direction (see fig. 2),
the standby cap is located in the first area (see fig. 2), and
the maintenance unit is located in the second area (see fig. 2),
the maintenance unit includes a cleaning unit ([0096]),
the cleaning unit is configured to perform the maintenance of the head by sucking the liquid from the nozzle ([0095]), and
the cleaning unit and the receiving unit are located in the second area (see fig. 2).
Washizawa teaches wherein the receiving unit is in the receiving unit is in the second area, not the first area as claimed. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a rearrangement of parts is not patentable if such a rearrangement does not modify the operation of the prior art device. Here, the claimed invention requires a standby cap, a receiving unit a printing area and a maintenance unit in that order, but this is just a rearrangement of the positions of the receiving area and the printing unit. That is, the claimed receiving unit could be placed on either side of the printing area, and the operation of the device is not changed.
Regarding claim 2, Washizawa teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning unit includes a suction cap configured to cover the nozzle by coming into contact with the head, and a suction pump configured to suck the inside of the suction cap (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Washizawa in view of Hoang teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 2, wherein the maintenance unit includes a wiping unit (Washizawa, fig. 2, item 64) configured to perform maintenance of the head by wiping the nozzle surface and the wiping unit includes a wiping member configured to come into contact with the nozzle surface, a feeding unit configured to feed the wiping member, and a winding unit configured to wind the wiping member (Washizawa, [0102], lines 19-26, Note that a wiping web necessarily has a feeding unit and a winding unit).
Regarding claim 5, Washizawa teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the receiving unit is located between the standby cap and the maintenance unit in the scanning direction (see fig. 2, Note that upon the rearrangement of parts detailed in the rejection of claim 1, this would be the case).
Regarding claim 6, Washizawa in view of Hoang teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 3. Washizawa does not teach wherein the wiping unit is located between the cleaning unit and the receiving unit in the scanning direction. However, according to MPEP 2144.04, a rearrangement of parts is not patentable if such a rearrangement does not modify the operation of the prior art device. Here, the claimed invention requires a cleaning unit, a wiping unit and a receiving unit in that order, but this is just a rearrangement of the positions of the wiping unit, the cleaning unit and the receiving unit of the prior art, and such a rearrangement does not modify the operation of the device as a whole or the components themselves.
Regarding claim 7, Washizawa teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the first area includes an acceleration and deceleration area, the acceleration and deceleration area being an area in which the head accelerates and decelerates for printing, and the standby cap and the receiving unit are located in the acceleration and deceleration area (see fig. 2, Note that this is necessarily the case as the head slows to a stop at both ends of the printer in main scans and then accelerates in the opposite direction after stopping).
Regarding claim 8, Washizawa teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the second area includes an acceleration and deceleration area, the acceleration and deceleration area being an area in which the head accelerates and decelerates for printing, and the maintenance unit is located in the acceleration and deceleration area (see fig. 2, Note that this is necessarily the case as the head slows to a stop at both ends of the printer in main scans and then accelerates in the opposite direction after stopping).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirono (2018/0093489).
Regarding claim 4, Washizawa teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1. Washizawa does not teach a first mounting unit and a second mounting unit to which a liquid reservoir is mountable, the liquid reservoir being configured to store the liquid, wherein at least a portion of the first mounting unit is located in the first area, at least a portion of the second mounting unit is located in the second area, and the number of the liquid reservoirs mountable to the first mounting unit is larger than the number of the liquid reservoirs mountable to the second mounting unit. Shirono teaches this (Shirono, fig. 3, Note first and second mounting units 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the mounting units disclosed Shirono to the device disclosed by Washizawa because doing so would allow for mounting of ink tanks on the printer.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washizawa in view of Kawamoto (2015/0109396) and Sakamoto (9,278,538).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Washizawa teaches wherein the vertical dimensions of the standby cap and receiving unit are less than that of the maintenance unit, as defined in claim 1 (see fig. 3). Washizawa does not teach the claimed mounting units. Kawamoto teaches two mounting units (Kawamoto, see fig. 5, Note mounting units in which cartridges 30 are mounted). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the mounting units disclosed by Kawamoto to the device of Washizawa because doing so would amount to combining a known mounting structure with a known printer to obtain predictable results. Upon combination of references, the added mounting units would be located below the standby cap/receiving unit and below the maintenance unit.
Washizawa in view of Kawamoto does not teach mounting units of different dimensions. Sakamoto teaches this (Sakamoto, see fig. 2, Note mounting units 20, 21 with different dimensions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one mounting unit for black ink and the other for color ink, which would result in two different sizes of mounting units, in the device disclosed by Washizawa in view of Kawamoto because doing so would amount to combining a known mounting unit division technique to a known printer to obtain predictable results.
Further, it would have been obvious to arrange the mounting units rotated by 90 degrees from the arrangement shown because doing so would amount to a simple rearrangement of parts, which according to MPEP 2144.04, is not patentable if it does not modify the operation of the device. Upon turning cartridge containers 20, 21 on their sides so that the containers 23 and 31-33 were horizontal, the resultant device would have two mounting portions with different vertical dimensions, the color mounting unit overlapping the standby cap and receiving unit and the black mounting unit overlapping the maintenance unit.
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