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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Applicant believes the flow paths of Kobayashi fails to teach or disclose the circular flow path elements as claimed in amended Claim 1”, please note that the claim as amended still includes the conjunction “or” twice, meaning that only one of two options presented (for each instance) has to be found for the limitation to be met. Since Kobayashi teaches a path with one end connected to the valve and the other end connected to the accommodation unit, then it is still appropriate as prior art in the rejection. Also, the addition of “either” makes it even more apparent that the option of one end being connected to the supply flow path between the valve and the pump and the option of the other end being connected to the supply flow path between the pump and the accommodation unit are not necessary for the limitation to be found since they are connected to the valve and the accommodation unit, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2023/0191806.)
Regarding claim 1,
Kobayashi discloses a processing liquid discharge device comprising:
an accommodation unit [32 in fig. 2] configured to accommodate a processing liquid for forming a lower base layer or an upper base layer of an ink discharged onto a printing medium by using an ink jet printer [paragraphs 0002 and 0030];
a spray nozzle [24b in fig. 6] configured to discharge the processing liquid accommodated in the accommodation unit [paragraphs 0026];
a supply flow path [path from liquid supply source 17 to the pressure regulating mechanism 40 in fig. 2 (i.e. the path were valves 44-46 are located)] for supplying the processing liquid from the accommodation unit to the spray nozzle [as seen in fig. 2];
a pump [39a in fig. 2] provided in the supply flow path [as seen in fig. 2] and configured to supply the processing liquid accommodated in the accommodation unit to the spray nozzle [paragraph 0033];
a valve [pressure regulating unit 48 in fig. 2, including valve 59] provided in the supply flow path between the spray nozzle and the pump [seen in fig. 2; paragraph 0047];
a circulation flow path [path including: path 30 from pressure regulating mechanism 40 to the head 15, path through the head 15, and path 31 from the head 15 back to the accommodation unit 32 in fig. 2] including one end being connected either to the supply flow path between the valve and the pump, or to the valve [as seen in fig. 2, reproduced below for clarity; please note that only one option is needed for the limitation to be met as written], and the other end being connected to either the supply flow path between the pump and the accommodation unit, or to the accommodation unit [as seen in fig. 2, reproduced below for clarity; please note that only one option is needed for the limitation to be met as written; paragraph 0030]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
169
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller [101 in fig. 7] configured to control the pump and the valve,
wherein the controller controls the valve to be set in a communication state where the pump and the spray nozzle communicate with each other after activating the pump to cause the processing liquid to flow from the supply flow path to the circulation flow path while controlling the valve to be set in a cut-off state where communication between the pump and the spray nozzle is cut off [paragraphs 0033-0036, 0047, 0053, and 0087; the valve opens/closes to allow/stop communication between the pump and the head/spray nozzle; note that paragraph 0033 recites “The supply pump 39a causes the ink or processing liquid in the liquid supply flow path 30 to flow from the liquid storage unit 32 toward the printing head 15”; paragraph 0047 recites “The supply valve 59 may take a closed-valve state for preventing a flow of the first ink in the communication flow path 57, and an open-valve state for permitting the flow of the first ink in the communication flow path 57”; paragraph 0053 recites “When the supply valve 59 is in the open-valve state, the first ink in the liquid inflow chamber 50 is supplied from the liquid inflow chamber 50 to the liquid outflow chamber 51 by pressurization of the first supply pump 39a1”.]
Regarding claim 2,
Kobayashi further discloses wherein the controller controls the valve to be in the communication state after a predetermined time has elapsed since the controller has started to activate the pump [paragraphs 0047-0053; please also note that this claim includes language from the intended use limitation in the previous claim.]
Regarding claim 3,
Kobayashi further discloses the processing liquid discharge device further comprising:
a filter [38 in fig. 2] that filters an impurity from the processing liquid is provided in the supply flow path [paragraph 0031.]
Regarding claim 4,
Kobayashi further discloses wherein the other end of the circulation flow path is connected to the accommodation unit [as seen in fig. 2.]
Regarding claim 7,
Kobayashi further discloses wherein, when finishing the discharge of the processing liquid from the spray nozzle, the controller stops activating the pump after controlling the valve to be set from the communication state to the cut-off state [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 9,
Kobayashi further discloses wherein the one end of the circulation flow path is connected to the valve [as seen in fig. 2], and
wherein the valve is a three-way valve [44a in fig. 2; paragraph 0041; if we interpret the supply flow path ending at one end and the circulation flow path (including valve 46) starting at the other] by which a communication state where the circulation flow path and the supply flow path communicate with each other is set when the cut-off state where the communication between the pump and the spray nozzle is cut off is set, and a cut-off state where the communication between the circulation flow path and the supply flow path is cut off is set when the communication state where the pump and the spray nozzle are communicated with each other is set [paragraphs 0047-0053; also, please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.]
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.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Sakai (US 2015/0273866.)
Regarding claim 5,
Kobayashi discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above and further discloses the processing liquid discharge device including:
a platen [12 in fig. 1] configured to support the printing medium [M in fig. 1; paragraphs 0021-0022], wherein the controller activates the pump until the platen reaches a discharge position from a setting position [it is implicit and well-known that the pump can be activated by the controller according to its intended purpose; please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim], and controls the valve to be in the communication state when the platen reaches the discharge position [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied], but fails to expressly disclose the processing liquid discharge device further comprising:
a platen moving mechanism configured to move the platen between a setting position where the printing medium is set to be supported by the platen and a discharge position where the processing liquid is discharged from the spray nozzle to the printing medium supported by the platen.
However, Sakai discloses an apparatus that includes a pre-treatment agent-applying section [23 in fig. 2] that applies a pre-treatment agent to a printing medium [P in fig. 2], a tray [54 in fig. 2] on which the medium is disposed, and a movement mechanism [53 in fig. 2] that moves the tray from a setting position and a discharge position [paragraphs 0027-0033 and 0046.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kobayashi invention to include means for moving the platen between a setting position where the printing medium is set to be supported by the platen and a discharge position where the processing liquid is discharged from the spray nozzle to the printing medium supported by the platen as taught by Sakai for the purpose of managing the printing medium in a more efficient way while moving it through different procedures as needed.
Regarding claim 6,
In the obvious combination, Kobayashi further discloses wherein the controller activates the pump after the platen starts moving from the setting position to the discharge position [as applied to the Sakai reference; it is implicit and well-known that the pump can be activated by the controller according to its intended purpose; please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.]
Regarding claim 8,
Kobayashi further discloses the processing liquid discharge device further comprising:
a platen [12 in fig. 1] configured to support the printing medium [paragraphs 0021-0022]; and
wherein when the platen reaches a discharge end position where the discharge of the processing liquid from the spray nozzle is finished, the discharge end position being provided between the setting position and the passing position, the controller stops activating the pump after controlling the valve to be set from the communication state to the cut-off state [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied],
whereas Sakai discloses the processing liquid discharge device further comprising
a platen moving mechanism [53 in fig. 2] configured to move the platen between a setting position where the printing medium is set to be supported by the platen and a passing position where the platen passes, through a discharge region in which the processing liquid is discharged from the spray nozzle to the printing medium supported by the platen, from the setting position [paragraphs 0027-0033 and 0046.]
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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853