/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 .
In the amendment filed on 1/8/26, the applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 7, 12-14 and 18-19. The 102 rejections over the refence to Hirasawa et al have been withdrawn. However, amended claims 1-12 and 14-19 have been found rejectable over the references to Hirasawa et al in view of JP 2014014993A and others.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 11,15,16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa et al (US 5,311,214, referred as “Hirasawa hereinafter) in view of JP 2014014993A.
Regarding claim 1, Hirasawa teaches a maintenance apparatus (100) comprising: a cap (3A) contactable with a nozzle surface of a liquid discharge head (1) (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Figs. 2-4); a suction unit (6) coupled to the cap (3A) to suck a liquid in the cap (3A) (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Figs. 2-4); a valve (8) coupled to the cap (3A) with a first path (5), the valve (8) to cause the first path (5) to be opened and closed to an atmosphere (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Figs. 2-4); a second path (not labeled) branched from the first path (5) (see for example Fig. 4); and an opening port (5A) coupled to the second path and communicating with the atmosphere (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Fig. 4). Hirasawa lacks specifically teaching the opening port is in constant communication with the atmosphere. However, JP’993 teaches (see English Translation on page 8 and Fig 15) an opening port (40B’) in constant communication with the atmosphere. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to leave the opening in constant communication with the atmosphere in Hirasawa to block the entry of ink as taught by JP’993 (see English Translation on page 8).
Regarding claim 5, Hirasawa teaches a maintenance apparatus (100) comprising: a cap (3A) contactable with a nozzle surface of a liquid discharge head (1) (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Figs. 2-4); a suction unit (6) coupled to the cap (3A) to suck a liquid in the cap (3A) (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Figs. 2-4); a valve (8) coupled to the cap (3A) with a first path (5), the valve (8) to cause the first path (5) to be opened and closed to an atmosphere (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Figs. 2-4); and an opening port (5A) having a hole in the first path (5) communicating with the atmosphere (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Fig. 4). Hirasawa lacks specifically teaching the opening port is in constant communication with the atmosphere. However, JP’993 teaches (see English Translation on page 8 and Fig 15) an opening port (40B’) in constant communication with the atmosphere. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to leave the opening in constant communication with the atmosphere in Hirasawa to block the entry of ink as taught by JP’993 (see English Translation on page 8).
Regarding claim 6, Hirasawa further shows that a length of the first path (5) from
the hole (5A) to the valve (8) is less than a half of a length of the first path (5) from the
cap (3A) to the valve (8) (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Hirasawa further teaches that valve (8) is an electromagnetic
valve (col. 7, line 45).
Regarding claim 11, Hirasawa further teaches that the opening port (5A) has a
hole communicating with the atmosphere (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Hirasawa teaches liquid discharge apparatus comprising a
liquid discharge head (1) to discharge a liquid onto a medium (P) (col. 6, lines 64-66;
Fig. 2); and the maintenance apparatus according to claim 1 to maintain the liquid
discharge head (see claim 1 rejection above). The limitation "line head-type" is deemed definite since the limitation is an art-recognized term known in the art, and the ordinary artisan (further in light of the specification) would understand the type of discharge head required in the claim (Spec., Pg. 12, lines 12-18).
Regarding claim 16, Hirasawa further teaches that the liquid discharge head (1)
may be a line head-type liquid discharge head (i.e., a full multi-type apparatus having a
plurality of discharge units along the width of a recording paper sheet) (col. 19, lines 1-
8).
Regarding claim 17, Hirasawa further teaches a drum conveyor (21) facing the
liquid discharge head (1) to convey the medium (P) to a position facing the liquid
discharge head (1) (col. 7, lines 1-10; Fig. 2)
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa (US 5,311,214) in view of JP 2014014993A over Hirasawa (USP 5311214) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Atkinson (USP 4190206).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hirasawa does not explicitly teach that the opening
port (5A) includes an open hole forming member having an open hole communicating
with the atmosphere, wherein the open hole forming member is an inelastic member.
However, Atkinson teaches a tube 46 and an opening port of a pipe including an
open hole forming member (36) having an open hole (44) communicating with the atmosphere, wherein the open hole forming member (36) is a rigid (inelastic) member, for the benefit of retaining it in place (col. 3, lines 37-57; see for example Figs. 9 and
10). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the
intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125
USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Thus, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to combine a rigid open hole forming member with opening port (5A) in the apparatus of
Hirasawa, as taught by Atkinson, for the benefit of retaining it in place.
Regarding claim 4, Hirasawa further shows that a length of the first path (5) from
the hole (5A) to the valve (8) is less than a half of a length of the first path (5) from the cap (3A) to the valve (8) (col. 7, lines 21-49; see for example Fig. 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hirasawa (USP 5311214) in view of JP 2014014993A as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tsukada (US 20200108596).
Regarding claim 7, Hirasawa does not explicitly teach that the suction unit (6) is a
diaphragm pump. However, Tsukada teaches a suction unit may be a diaphragm pump for equivalent purpose of generating negative pressure inside cap 27 (para 0028-0029; see for example Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the suction unit (6) with a diaphragm pump in the apparatus of Hirasawa, as taught by Tsukada, for the equivalent purpose of generating negative pressure inside cap.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hirasawa (USP 5311214) in view of JP 2014014993A as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Martin (US 20090237424).
As mentioned above, the limitation "surface unit coupling portion" has been
interpreted to refer to "a cap surface" corresponding to structure described in the
specification that achieves the claimed function (Spec., Pg. 22, lines 5-6, Drawings, Fig.
15).
Regarding claim 14, Hirasawa further teaches that the cap (3A) includes a nip
portion to contact with the nozzle surface of the liquid discharge head (1); a suction unit coupling portion coupled to the suction unit (6); and a liquid absorber (3B) between the nip portion and the suction unit coupling portion in the cap (3) (col. 8, lines 12-20; see for example Fig. 4). Hirasawa does not explicitly teach that the liquid absorber (3B) between the nip portion and the suction unit coupling portion in the cap (3) to separate a space in the cap into a first space surrounded by the nip portion and the liquid absorber (3B); and a second space surrounded by the liquid absorber (3B) and the suction unit coupling portion, and the first path (5) penetrating through the suction unit coupling portion and the liquid absorber (3B) to communicate with the first space.
However, Martin teaches a liquid absorber (52) between the nip portion (72) and
a suction unit coupling portion (70) in the cap (50) to separate a space in the cap (50)
into a first space surrounded by the nip portion (72) and the liquid absorber (52); and a
second space surrounded by the liquid absorber (52) and the suction unit coupling
portion (70), and a first path (58) penetrating through the suction unit coupling portion
(70) and the liquid absorber (52) to communicate with the first space, for the benefit of
reducing the amount of liquid that may flow into the first path (58) (para 0023-0025,
0028; see for example Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
arrangement of the liquid absorber (3B) and first path (5) in the apparatus of Hirasawa,
as taught by Martin, for the benefit of reducing the amount of liquid that may flow into
the first path (5).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Hirasawa (USP 5311214) in view of JP 2014014993A as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Kobayashi (USP 6036299).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Hirasawa further teaches circuitry configured to
bring the cap (3A) into contact with the nozzle surface of the liquid discharge head (1)
(col. 7, lines 21-35; Fig. 3), close the valve (8), and open the valve (8) after the sucking
operation of the suction unit (6) (col. 9, lines 8-25; col. 10, lines 11-25; Figs. 8 and 9).
Hirasawa does not explicitly teach causing the suction unit (6) to repeatedly
temporarily stop sucking liquid from cap (3A) multiple times while the cap (3A) contacts
head (1) and valve (8) is closed as a sucking operation. However, Kobayashi teaches temporarily stopping sucking the liquid from cap (12) multiple times while the cap (12) contacts head (7) and the valve (V1) is closed, for the benefit of preventing air from flowing abruptly into the cap (12) through valve (V1) when it is opened and preventing menisci from becoming destroyed (col. 7, lines 21-61; see for example Figs. 7 and 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeatedly temporarily stop sucking the liquid from the cap (3A) multiple times while valve (8) is closed in the apparatus of Hirasawa, as taught by Kobayashi, for the benefit of preventing air from flowing abruptly into the cap (3A) through valve (8) when it is opened and preventing menisci from becoming destroyed.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tojo (US 20100118082) in view of JP 2014014993A and Terasawa (USP 4999643).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Tojo teaches a maintenance apparatus comprising:
a cap (32a) contactable with a nozzle surface of a liquid discharge head (19)
(para 0137; Fig. 14); a suction unit (38) coupled to the cap (32a) to suck a liquid in the cap (32a) (para 0140; Fig. 14); a valve (112) coupled to the cap (32a) with a first path (111), the valve (112) to cause the first path (111) to be opened and closed to an atmosphere (para 0137; Fig. 14). Tojo does not explicitly teach a second path branched from the first path (111) and an opening port is in constant communication with the atmosphere. However, Terasawa teaches a valve (427) coupled to the cap (23) with a first path (425), the valve (427) to cause the first path (425) to be opened and closed to an atmosphere (col. 4, lines 13-43; Fig. 6); a second path branched from the first path (see for example Fig. 6); and an opening port (432) coupled to the second path and communicating with the atmosphere (col. 4, lines 13-43; Fig. 6), wherein the second path is branched from the first path (425) at a branching point, a part of the first path (425) is above the branching point in a vertical direction (see Fig. 6), for the benefit of preventing migration of ink into the first path (425). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to branch a second path below the first path (111) and coupled to an opening port communicating with the atmosphere in the apparatus of Tojo, as taught by Terasawa, for the benefit of preventing migration of ink into the first path (111). With respect to the communication to the atmosphere, JP’993 also teaches (see English Translation on page 8 and Fig 15) an opening port (40B’) in constant communication with the atmosphere. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to leave the opening in constant communication with the atmosphere in Tojo to block the entry of ink as taught by JP’993 (see English Translation on page 8).
Regarding claim 10, Tojo further shows that the cap (27) contacts the nozzle
surface of a liquid discharge head (19) at a contact position in the vertical direction, and
the part of the first path (111) is above the contact position in the vertical direction (see
for example, Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Tojo further teaches multiple caps (31a, 32a), and the suction unit (38) is coupled to each of the multiple caps (31a, 32a), the valve (112) is
coupled to each of the multiple caps (31a, 32a) with multiple first paths (110, 111) and
the suction unit (38) sucks the liquid in each of the multiple caps (31a, 32a) (para 0137,
0140; Fig. 14). Tojo does not explicitly teach multiple opening ports, the multiple opening ports coupled to the multiple caps (31a, 32a) with multiple second paths, respectively. However, as mentioned above, Terasawa teaches a valve (427) coupled to the cap (23) with a first path (425), the valve (427) to cause the first path (425) to be
opened and closed to an atmosphere (col. 4, lines 13-43; Fig. 6); a second path
branched from the first path (see for example Fig. 6); and an opening port (432) coupled
to the second path and communicating with the atmosphere (col. 4, lines 13-43; Fig. 6),
for the benefit of preventing migration of ink into the first path (425). The duplication of
parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to branch a second path from each of
the first paths (111, 110) and coupled to an opening port communicating with the
atmosphere, respectively, in the apparatus of Tojo, as taught by Terasawa, for the
benefit of preventing migration of ink into the first paths (111, 110).
The subject matter of Claim 13 is allowable for the same reasons described in the non-final action sent on 10/21/25.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights