DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 1 is 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. The claim recites “the first on-off valve is brought into an open state to perform a first discharge process” but then proceeds to recite “in the first discharge process…after a timing at which the first on-off valve is switched from the open state to the closed state…” The claim would seem to be saying that the first discharge process happens when the valve is in the open state and then also when the valve is at the closed state. It is unclear what is intended by this.
Further, the claim recites “in the first discharge process, the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped…” However, the previous language would seem to imply that the first discharge process is a distinct operation from the driving of the pressurizing mechanism. That is, the previous language seems to state that the first discharge process takes place only after the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped.
Moreover, the claim recites, “during a period from a timing that the driving of the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped to a timing that the first on-off valve is switched…the driving of the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped.” However, if the beginning of the defined period is set by the stopping of the first pressurizing mechanism, it is not clear how the first pressurizing mechanism can be stopped in a period commenced by its own stoppage.
Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karppinen (2009/0085991).
Regarding claim 1, Karppinen teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus comprising:
a liquid ejecting head (fig. 1, item 2) having a first nozzle row that ejects a first liquid,
a first tank (fig. 1, item 4) storing the first liquid to be supplied to the first nozzle row ([0342], note that nozzles are necessarily arranged in rows);
a first supply flow path (fig. 1, item 5) for supplying the first liquid to the first nozzle row from the first tank (see fig. 1);
a first on-off valve (fig. 1, item 7) provided in an intermediate portion of the first supply flow path and configured to open and close the first supply flow path (fig. 1); and
a first pressurizing mechanism (fig. 1, item 10) configured to pressurize an inside of the first tank ([00345]), wherein in a closed state of the first on-off valve, the first pressurizing mechanism is driven to set a pressure inside the first tank to a first predetermined positive pressure, and thereafter, the first on-off valve is brought into an open state to perform a first discharge process of discharging the first liquid from the first nozzle row ([0139]), and
in the first discharge process, the first after a timing at which the first on-off valve is switched from the open state to the closed state ([0139]),
in the first discharge process, the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped before the first on-off valve is switched from the closed state to the open state, and
in the first discharge process, during a period from a timing that the driving of the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped to a timing that the first -on-off valve is switched from the closed state to the open state, the driving of the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped ([0139], see 112 rejection).
Further, according to MPEP 2144, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate a claimed apparatus from the prior art. Here, a pump is driven for a certain amount of time to obtain a certain pressure in the tank, and then a valve is opened, and then the valve is closed after a predetermined amount of time has elapsed or a predetermined pressure within the tank has been established, but these limitations are purely functional and directed to the manner of operating the apparatus and thus do not add patentable weight to the claims. For purposes of examination of the claims, all claims depending from claim 1 with similar limitations are subject to the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Karppinen teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the predetermined positive pressure is set to a first pressure, a pressure inside the first tank when the first on-off valve is brought into the open state until the pressure inside the first tank is substantially constant after the pressure inside the first tank is set to the first pressure is set to a second pressure, and a pressure between the first pressure and the second pressure is set to a third pressure, in the discharge process, the first on-off valve is switched from the open state to the closed state at a timing at which the pressure inside the first tank is the third pressure (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Karppinen teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when the predetermined positive pressure is set to a first pressure, a time length required until the pressure inside the first tank is substantially constant after the first on-off valve is brought into the open state is set to a first time length in a case where the first on-off valve is brought into the open state until the pressure inside the first tank is substantially constant after the pressure inside the first tank is set to the first pressure, and a time length shorter than the first time length is set to a second time length, in the discharge process, the first on-off valve is switched from the open state to the closed state at a timing at which the second time length elapses after the first on-off valve is brought into the open state (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 5, Karppinen teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the liquid ejecting apparatus is configured to perform one or both of a filling process of starting to perform the discharge process in a state where the liquid ejecting head is not filled with the first liquid, and a cleaning process of starting to perform the discharge process in a state where the liquid ejecting head is filled with the first liquid (see claim 1 rejection, [0139]).
Regarding claim 6, Karppinen teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the liquid ejecting apparatus is configured to perform both the filling process and the cleaning process, and the predetermined positive pressure in the cleaning process is smaller than the predetermined positive pressure in the filling process ([0139]).
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) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karppinen in view of Nakamura et al. (2018/0250946).
Regarding claim 8, Karppinen teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 1. Karppinen does not teach a first atmospheric opening valve configured to open and close the inside of the first tank to be open to the atmosphere. Nakamura teaches this (Nakamura, fig. 1, Note that first tank 32 has first atmospheric valve 41B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the atmospheric valve disclosed by Nakamura to the tank of Karppinen because doing so would allow for stabilization of the pressure within the tank when necessary, thereby allowing for stable ink ejection. Upon combination of references the resultant device would operate wherein in the discharge process, the inside of the first tank is pressurized to the predetermined positive pressure by driving the first pressurizing mechanism in a closed state of the first atmospheric opening valve. That is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to keep the atmospheric valve closed during pumping because to leave it open would prevent build up of positive pressure required for the claimed discharge process.
Regarding claim 9, Karppinen in view of Nakamura teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 8, wherein in the discharge process, the first pressurizing mechanism is stopped before the first on-off valve is switched from the closed state to the open state (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 10, Karppinen teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the liquid ejecting head includes an ejecting surface including the first nozzle row and a second nozzle row that ejects a second liquid having a type different from a type of the first liquid, the liquid ejecting apparatus further comprises: a second tank storing the second liquid to be supplied to the second nozzle row; a second supply flow path for supplying the second liquid to the second nozzle row from the second tank; a second on-off valve provided in an intermediate portion of the second supply flow path and configured to open and close the second supply flow path; and a second pressurizing mechanism configured to pressurize an inside of the second tank, in the discharge process, a pressure inside the second tank is set to a predetermined positive pressure by driving the second pressurizing mechanism in a closed state of the second on-off valve, and thereafter, the second liquid is discharged from the second nozzle row by bringing the second on-off valve into an open state, in the discharge process, the second on-off valve is switched from the open state to the closed state at a timing at which the second liquid is being continuously discharged from the second nozzle row, and in the discharge process, a period for maintaining the open state of the first on-off valve and a period for maintaining the open state of the second on-off valve at least partially overlap each other (Karppinen, fig. 1, Nakamura, see fig. 1, Note that, when Karppinen’s components are doubled, as disclosed by Nakamura, the resultant structure meets the limitations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a second tank and corresponding components, as disclosed by Nakamura, to the device disclosed by Karppinen because doing so would allow for ink flow in either direction, thereby allowing for better ink circulation. Further, to time the first and second discharging processes to overlap in time would have been obvious because to stagger such processes would serve no purpose while wasting time.
Regarding claim 11, Karppinen in view of Nakamura teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in the discharge process, a timing at which the first on-off valve is switched from the closed state to the open state and a timing at which the second on-off valve is switched from the closed state to the open state are the same as each other, and a timing at which the first on-off valve is switched from the open state to the closed state and a timing at which the second on-off valve is switched from the open state to the closed state are the same as each other (see claim 10 rejection, rationale).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karppinen in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Glassman (2019/0337298).
Regarding claim 12, Karppinen in view of Nakamura teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 10. Karppinen in view of Nakamura does not teach a wiping member that wipes the ejecting surface, wherein after the discharge process, a wiping operation of causing the wiping member to wipe the ejecting surface is performed during a period in which both the first on-off valve and the second on-off valve are brought into the closed state. Glassman teaches this (Glassman, [0116]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the wiping technique disclosed by Glassman to the device disclosed by Karppinen in view of Nakamura because doing so would allow for effective wiping of the nozzles, thereby preventing reduction in ejection quality. Upon combination, the wiping would take place after opening of the atmospheric valves of the first and second tanks.
Regarding claim 13, Karppinen in view of Nakamura and Glassman teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 12, further comprising: a first atmospheric opening valve configured to open and close the inside of the first tank to be open to the atmosphere; and a second atmospheric opening valve configured to open and close the inside of the second tank to be open to the atmosphere, wherein in the discharge process, after both the first on-off valve and the second on-off valve are brought into the closed state, and at a timing before at least one of the first on-off valve and the second on-off valve is brought into the open state after the wiping operation is performed, both the first atmospheric opening valve and the second atmospheric opening valve are switched from the closed state to the open state (see claim 13 rejection).
Regarding claim 14, Karppinen in view of Nakamura and Glassman teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 13, wherein during a period in which the wiping operation is performed or before the wiping operation is performed, the first atmospheric opening valve and the second atmospheric opening valve are switched from the closed state to the open state (see claim 13 rejection).
Claim(s) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karppinen in view of Nakamura and Glassman as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nishida (2007/0126816).
Regarding claim 15, Karppinen in view of Nakamura and Glassman teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the first nozzle row includes a plurality of nozzles, the liquid ejecting head includes a plurality of pressure chambers communicating with every nozzle of the plurality of nozzles (Karppinen, Note that this is necessarily the case).
Karppinen in view of Nakamura and Glassman does not teach wherein after the wiping operation is performed, a flushing operation is performed. Nishida teaches this (Nishida, see fig. 6, S10, S11). It would have been obvious to perform a flushing operation after a wiping operation, as disclosed by Nishida, in the device disclosed by Karppinen in view of Nakamura and Glassman because doing so would allow for thorough flushing of the nozzles. Upon combination of references, the following limitation would be met: and a total amount of the first liquid ejected from one nozzle of the plurality of nozzles by the flushing operation is equal to or smaller than a volume of the pressure chamber communicating with the one nozzle in the plurality of pressure chambers. In other words, flushing can eject amounts as small as one droplet, and more than one droplet’s worth of volume are contained in a pressure chamber.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karppinen in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (2021/0101386).
Regarding claim 16, Karppinen in view of Nakamura teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 11. Karppinen in view of Nakamura does not teach wherein the first nozzle row and the second nozzle row are provided in the same nozzle plate. Fujii teaches this (Fujii, [0057], fig. 4). It would have been obvious to use a nozzle plate with the structure disclosed by Fujii in the device disclosed by Karppinen in view of Nakamura because doing so would amount to combining a known nozzle plate structure with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Karppinen in view of Nakamura and Fujii teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 16, wherein a shortest distance between nozzles of the first nozzle row and the second nozzle row is 1.5 mm or shorter (Fujii, [0057]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended, but the amendments create certain 112 issues. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 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