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 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the Office action, dated 11/5/25, indicated that Gargir’s 66 was used to read on the claimed “suction hole.” It is unclear where the Office action had indicated that Gargir’s 66 was used to read on the claimed “suction hole.” The Office action had indicated that the orifice of Kameshima’s 600A and 600B reads on claim 1’s “suction hole.” One of ordinary skill can interpret the orifice of Kameshima’s 600A and 600B as the interior space that is sealed by 600A or 600B. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill that the interior region that is sealed by Gargir’s 58 would correspond to the interior space that is sealed by Kameshima’s 600A or 600B, and therefore, the interior space that is sealed by Gargir’s 58 can be considered the “suction hole.” Therefore, Gargir’s sprayers 74A-C can be considered to be mounted in the suction hole.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 are 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 11-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameshima et al. (US 2020/0047501 A1) in view of Gargir (EP 1218193 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kameshima discloses A cleaning assembly for a drop-on-demand print head that has a print head body, a nozzle plate and a plurality of nozzles distributed on the nozzle plate (see fig. 5A, para 55-59), wherein the cleaning assembly comprises:
a main body (see fig. 11, para 69-74);
at least one suction hole provided near an outer surface of the main body (see orifice of 600A or 600B, fig. 11, para 69-74), wherein when the cleaning assembly is used for cleaning a drop-on-demand print head, the outer surface faces at least a part of the nozzle plate and the suction hole faces at least one of the plurality of nozzles (see fig. 11, para 69-74);
a suction passage fluidly that communicates with the suction hole (see fig. 11, para 69-74);
a moving mechanism that moves the main body with respect to the print head body along a first direction perpendicular to a plane of the nozzle plate and along a second direction parallel to the plane of the nozzle plate (see fig. 11, para 69-74);
a cleaning fluid passage that communicates with the suction hole (Kameshima does not appear to disclose this. However, Gargir discloses this. See below.); and
a spraying device that fluidly communicates with the cleaning fluid passage so that it sprays a cleaning fluid inside the suction hole towards an outside of the main body (Kameshima does not appear to disclose this. However, Gargir discloses this. See below.),
wherein the outer surface of the main body includes a contact cleaning element that surrounds at least in part an outer perimeter of the suction hole (rim of 600A or 600B, fig. 11, para 69-74), wherein an area of a region surface delimited by the contact cleaning element is smaller than an area of the outer surface (see fig. 11), wherein the moving mechanism brings the contact cleaning element in contact with the nozzle plate and wherein, when the contact cleaning element contacts the nozzle plate, it moves the main body relative to the print head body along the second direction (see fig. 11, para 69-74).
Kameshima fails to disclose
a cleaning fluid passage that communicates with the suction hole; and
a spraying device that fluidly communicates with the cleaning fluid passage so that it sprays a cleaning fluid inside the suction hole towards an outside of the main body,
However, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, teaches
a cleaning fluid passage that communicates with the suction hole (Inherent in Gargir’s fig. 1A,B; fig. 1A: "As shown in Fig. 1B, the three sprayers 74A, 74B and 74C then spray nozzle plate 34 with a cleaning agent."); and
a spraying device that fluidly communicates with the cleaning fluid passage so that it sprays a cleaning fluid inside the suction hole towards an outside of the main body (see Gargir’s fig. 1A: "As shown in Fig. 1B, the three sprayers 74A, 74B and 74C then spray nozzle plate 34 with a cleaning agent."),
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 Kameshima with the teachings of Gargir, for the purpose of enhancing the printhead maintenance.
Regarding claim 2, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, further discloses The cleaning assembly according to claim 1, wherein the contact cleaning element is a sealing element to seal a volume fluidly that communicates with the suction hole when the contact cleaning element contacts the nozzle plate (see Kameshima’s fig. 11, para 69-74).
Regarding claim 5, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, further discloses The cleaning assembly according to claim 1, wherein the spraying device includes a cleaning fluid nozzle (see Gargir’s fig. 1A: "As shown in Fig. 1B, the three sprayers 74A, 74B and 74C then spray nozzle plate 34 with a cleaning agent.").
Regarding claim 6, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, further discloses The cleaning assembly according to claim 1, further comprising an additional suction hole, wherein the suction passage fluidly communicates with the additional suction hole (see Kameshima’s fig. 11, para 69-74).
Regarding claim 8, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, does not appear to explicitly disclose The cleaning assembly according to claim 6, wherein a distance between a centre of gravity of the suction hole and a centre of gravity of the additional suction hole is smaller than 17.5 mm and higher than 6 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the apparatus with the above limitations for the purpose of appropriately sizing the suction holes according to the size of the printhead, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, further discloses A cleaning method that involves the cleaning assembly according to claim 1 (intrinsic to Kameshima, as modified by Gargir).
Regarding claim 12, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 13, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, further discloses The cleaning method according to claim 12, further including a step of positioning the main body with respect to the print head body, so that the outer surface of the main body faces at least a part of the nozzle plate and a suction hole provided near the outer surface faces at least one of the plurality of nozzles (see Kameshima’s fig. 11, para 69-74).
Regarding claim 14, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, further discloses The cleaning method according to claim 13, wherein the spraying device is centrally mounted with respect to the suction hole (see Gargir’s fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 15, Kameshima, as modified by Gargir, further discloses The cleaning assembly according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of nozzles are distributed in two pairs of longitudinal nozzle rows (see Kameshima’s fig. discloses four parallel rows, which can be interpreted ), wherein each of the suction hole and additional suction hole is respectfully associated with a pair of nozzle rows.
Regarding claim 16, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 14. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 14; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are 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.
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 JUSTIN SEO whose telephone number is (571)270-1327. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Ricardo I Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
/JUSTIN SEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
February 26, 2026