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 with respect to claim 5 (and indirectly the claims that depend on it) 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. Please note that, as corroborated by Applicant in page 16 of the Remarks filed on 26 May 2026, “Independent claim 5 now includes all of the limitations of originally filed dependent claim 5 and independent claim 1 (but does not include the limitations of intervening claims 2-4 as originally filed).” This changed the scope of the invention and required a new search and consideration.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 – regarding claim 2 and therefore also the claims that depend on it – have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s statement that “the Office admitted that Zoltner does not disclose the claimed "second purged ink container that is fluidly connected to a receptacle that receives ink purged through inkjets in the printheads, the second purged ink container being configured for removal from the inkjet printer to enable discarding of the ink purged through the inkjets in the printhead."”, please note that said statement is not accurate. In pages 4 and 5 of the Non-Final (mailed on 25 February 2026), the Examiner indicates that “Zoltner discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above and further discloses the aqueous inkjet printer further comprising: a second purged ink container that is fluidly connected to a receptacle that receives ink purged through inkjets in the printheads [it is implicit that more than one purged ink container is included from paragraph 0042, which recites “one or more printheads are configured with a reclaimed ink reservoir to collect one or more colored inks from a printhead”]” (emphasis added). The Slotto reference was used to reject “the second purged ink container being configured for removal from the inkjet printer to enable discarding of the ink purged through the inkjets in the printhead. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is well-known that being able to remove a purged ink container from an inkjet printer to discard ink purged through inkjets in a printhead when necessary, extends the printer’s lifespan and maintains print quality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 7, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “at least one printhead in the plurality of printheads that is configured to eject black colored ink, the at least one printhead configured to eject black colored ink is fluidly connected to the first purged ink container to receive process black ink from the first purged ink container; wherein at least one of the printheads ejects black colored ink received from the supply of black ink only and at least one other printhead ejects process black ink received from the first purged ink container only”. It is unclear whether the “at least one other printhead ejects process black ink received from the first purged ink container only” is the same as “at least one printhead in the plurality of printheads that is configured to eject black colored ink, the at least one printhead configured to eject black colored ink is fluidly connected to the first purged ink container to receive process black ink from the first purged ink container”. Also, the claim recites a plurality of printheads configured to eject black colored ink, but then recites that one ejects black ink and another ejects process black ink. It is unclear whether “process black ink” is considered “black colored ink”, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 7 and 21-23 have been rejected the same way due to their dependency on Claim 5.
Furthermore, Claim 22 recites “a supply of black ink”, making the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the supply of black ink refers to the one in claim 5 or an additional supply of black ink. Claim 23 depends on Claim 22 and is rejected the same way.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 5, 7, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zoltner et al. (US 2013/0182267 – hereinafter Zoltner.)
Regarding claim 5,
Zoltner discloses an aqueous inkjet printer [100 in fig. 5] comprising:
a plurality of printheads [122/124/126/128 in fig. 5; paragraphs 0021-0025];
a plurality of aqueous ink supplies [154/156/158/160 in fig. 1; paragraph 0026; also, the last sentence of paragraph 0024 teaches the invention being used to eject aqueous ink], each printhead [printhead 140/168 in the example seen in fig. 1] being fluidly connected to at least one of the ink supplies in the plurality of ink supplies [as seen in fig. 1] and at least some of the ink supplies storing ink having a different color of ink than ink stored in at least some other ink supplies [paragraphs 0026 and 0029], the plurality of aqueous ink supplies including a supply of black ink [166 in fig. 1; also note that fig. 1 teaches a second printhead 168 which is not connected to purged ink reservoir/container 164 and shows ink reservoirs (not numbered) for each color being connected directly to its corresponding printhead];
a first purged ink container [164 in fig. 1] that is fluidly connected to at least some of the printheads in the plurality of printheads [as seen in fig. 1] to receive different colors of aqueous ink purged from a manifold in the printheads connected to the first purged ink container [paragraphs 0030 and 0033];
at least one printhead [144 in fig. 1] in the plurality of printheads that is configured to eject black colored ink [paragraph 0028], the at least one printhead configured to eject black colored ink is fluidly connected to the first purged ink container to receive process black ink from the first purged ink container [as seen in fig. 1; paragraphs 0036-0037];
wherein at least one of the printheads ejects black colored ink received from the supply of black ink only [bottom printhead in the array 168 in fig. 1] and at least one other printhead [144 in fig. 1] ejects process black ink received from the first purged ink container only [head 144 ejects mixed/process black ink that is only received from the purged ink container 164; please note that it is unclear what limitation “only” imposes – whether it limits the ink ejected or the source of the process black ink; also note figs. 2 and 3, which show purged ink reservoirs 264/364 supplying process black ink to printhead array 244/344; paragraphs 0039-0040]; and
a controller [190 in fig. 1] operatively connected to the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink only and to the at least one printhead that ejects process black ink only [as seen in fig. 1], the controller being further configured to operate the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink only and the at least one printhead that ejects process black ink only with reference to image content data and print job parameters [as seen in fig. 1; paragraphs 0026, 0028-0030; also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 7,
Zoltner further discloses the controller being further configured to:
operate the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink only for portions of black color separations in ink images in a print job; and
operate the at least one printhead that ejects process black ink only for other portions of black color separations in the ink images in the print job, the portions of the black color separations printed with the printhead that ejects black colored ink only being different than the other portions of the black color separations printed with the printhead that ejects process black ink only [paragraphs 0028-0040.]
Regarding claim 22,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses the aqueous inkjet printer further comprising:
a first valve [not shown but mentioned in paragraph 0037] fluidly connected to a supply of black ink in the plurality of ink supplies, to the first purged ink container, and to the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink [paragraph 0037]; and
a controller [190 in fig. 1] operatively connected to the first valve, the controller being configured to operate the first valve to provide the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink black colored ink from the supply of black ink and process black ink from the first purged ink container selectively [paragraph 0037; also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 23,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses the aqueous inkjet printer further comprising:
a second valve fluidly connected to the supply of black ink and the first purged ink container [paragraph 0040; not shown but mentioned; note it’s misspelled as “value”]; and
the controller is further configured to:
operate the second valve to provide black colored ink from the supply of black ink to the first purged ink container to alter the process black ink in the first purged ink container [paragraph 0040; please note that it is not clear if the claimed “supply of black ink refers to the one included in claim 5 or an additional one, making the claim indefinite and open to interpretation; see 112 Rejection above.]
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.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoltner in view of Slotto et al. (US Patent 8,317,309 – hereinafter Slotto.)
Regarding claim 2,
Zoltner discloses an aqueous inkjet printer [100 in fig. 5] comprising:
a plurality of printheads [122/124/126/128 in fig. 5; paragraphs 0021-0025];
a plurality of aqueous ink supplies [154/156/158/160 in fig. 1; paragraph 0026; note that the last sentence of paragraph 0024 teaches the invention being used to eject aqueous ink], each printhead [printhead 140 in the example seen in fig. 1] being fluidly connected to at least one of the ink supplies in the plurality of ink supplies [as seen in fig. 1] and at least some of the ink supplies storing ink having a different color of ink than ink stored in at least some other ink supplies [paragraphs 0026 and 0029];
a first purged ink container [164 in fig. 1] that is fluidly connected to at least some of the printheads in the plurality of printheads [through reservoirs 154-160; seen in fig. 1] to receive different colors of aqueous ink purged from a manifold [interior chamber] in the printheads connected to the first purged ink container [paragraphs 0030 and 0033]; and
at least one printhead [144 in fig. 1] in the plurality of printheads that is configured to eject black colored ink [paragraph 0028], the at least one printhead configured to eject black colored ink is fluidly connected to the first purged ink container to receive process black ink from the first purged ink container [as seen in fig.1; paragraphs 0036-0037], and
a second purged ink container that is fluidly connected to a receptacle that receives ink purged through inkjets in the printheads [it is implicit that more than one purged ink container is included from paragraph 0042, which recites “one or more printheads are configured with a reclaimed ink reservoir to collect one or more colored inks from a printhead.”]
However, Zoltner fails to expressly disclose the second purged ink container being configured for removal from the inkjet printer to enable discarding of the ink purged through the inkjets in the printhead.
Slotto discloses an inkjet printer [10 in fig. 1] comprising: a plurality of printheads [col. 3, lines 55-60]; a plurality of ink supplies [22/24/26/28 in figs. 1 and 3], each printhead being fluidly connected to at least one of the ink supplies in the plurality of ink supplies and at least some of the ink supplies storing ink having a different color of ink than ink stored in at least some other ink supplies [col. 3, lines 38-42]; a purged ink container that is fluidly connected to a receptacle that receives ink purged through inkjets in the printheads [as seen in fig. 5], and that is configured for removal from the inkjet printer to enable discarding of the ink purged through the inkjets in the printhead [col. 1, lines 51-53 and col. 6, lines 22-46 teach that it is well-known at the time of the invention.]
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 Zoltner invention to include means for removal of a purged ink container from the inkjet printer as taught by Slotto for the purpose of being able to discard the ink purged through the inkjets in the printhead when necessary, extending the printer’s lifespan and maintaining print quality.
Regarding claim 3,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses the aqueous inkjet printer further comprising:
a first valve [not shown but mentioned in paragraph 0037] fluidly connected to a supply of black ink in the plurality of ink supplies, to the first purged ink container, and to the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink [paragraph 0037]; and
a controller [190 in fig. 1] operatively connected to the first valve, the controller being configured to:
operate the first valve to provide the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink black colored ink from the supply of black ink and process black ink from the first purged ink container selectively [paragraph 0037.]
Regarding claim 4,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses the aqueous inkjet printer further comprising:
a second valve fluidly connected to the supply of black ink and the first purged ink container [paragraph 0040; not shown but mentioned; note it’s misspelled as “value”]; and
the controller is further configured to:
operate the second valve to provide black colored ink from the supply of black ink to the first purged ink container to alter the process black ink in the first purged ink container [paragraph 0040.]
Regarding claim 8,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses at least one printhead in the plurality of printheads further comprising:
first array of inkjets [144 in fig. 1] that eject a first color of ink [black; paragraphs 0027-0030]; and
a second array of inkjets [146/148/150 in fig. 1] that eject a second color of ink [magenta/cyan/yellow] that is different than the first color of ink [paragraphs 0027-0030.]
Regarding claim 9,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses wherein the first array of inkjets is fluidly connected to the first purged ink container [as seen in fig. 1.]
Regarding claim 10,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses the controller being further configured to:
operate the first valve to connect the first array of inkjets to the supply of black ink and the first purged ink container selectively [paragraphs 0026-0030, 0033, and 0037.]
Regarding claim 21,
In the obvious combination, Zoltner further discloses a second purged ink container that is fluidly connected to a receptacle that receives ink purged through inkjets in the printheads [it is implicit that more than one purged ink container is included from paragraph 0042, which recites “one or more printheads are configured with a reclaimed ink reservoir to collect one or more colored inks from a printhead”],
whereas Slotto discloses the purged ink container being configured for removal from the inkjet printer to enable discarding of the ink purged through the inkjets in the printhead [col. 1, lines 51-53 and col. 6, lines 22-46 teach that it is well-known at the time.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 25-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of an aqueous inkjet printer comprising:
a plurality of printheads including a plurality of inkjets;
a plurality of aqueous ink supplies, each printhead being fluidly connected to at least one of the ink supplies in the plurality of ink supplies and at least some of the ink supplies storing ink having a different color of ink than ink stored in at least some other ink supplies;
a first purged ink container that is fluidly connected to at least some of the printheads in the plurality of printheads to receive different colors of aqueous ink purged from a manifold in the printheads connected to the first purged ink container, each manifold including an outlet configured to allow ink residing in the manifold to exit the manifold during a manifold purge;
a second purge container that is configured to receive dried or clogged ink from the plurality of inkjets during an inkjet stack purge; and
at least one printhead in the plurality of printheads that is configured to eject black colored ink, the at least one printhead configured to eject black colored ink is fluidly connected to the first purged ink container to receive process black ink from the first purged ink container.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Regarding claims 25-30,
These claims are allowed due to their dependency on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 24,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claims 2-4, further comprising
wherein at least one of the printheads ejects black colored ink received the supply of black ink only and at least one other printhead ejects process black ink received from the first purged ink container only: and
wherein the controller is operatively connected to the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink only and to the at least one printhead that eject process black ink only, the controller being further configured to operate the at least one printhead that ejects black colored ink only and the at least one printhead that ejects process black ink only with reference to image content data and print job parameters.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights