DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the solvent provided from the porous layer” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 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 claims recite “the layer that releases the solvent,” but to that point in the claims, both of “a layer that enables solvent provided from the porous layer to be release” and a “porous layer” initially containing the solvent are recited. It is not clear as to which of the latter two layers the first layer is intended to refer. Clarification is required.
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) 1, 2, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murcia et al. (6,481,822) in view of Jackson et al. (5,706,038).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Murcia teaches an inkjet printer and printhead maintenance station for a printhead, the printhead defining a print zone, a process direction, and a cross-process direction, the printhead maintenance station arranged adjacent to the print zone and comprising:
at least one printhead module (fig. 4, item 60);
a printhead maintenance station (fig. 4, item 80), the printhead maintenance station including:
a purge station (fig. 4, left portion of maintenance station) for receiving ink purged from a printhead (see fig. 4, note purging); and
an inkjet preservation station (fig. 4, entire right portion of maintenance station) displaced from the purge station by a predetermined distance (fig. 4) outside of the print zone (see fig. 4, note that the printhead does not print at the maintenance position), the inkjet preservation station being configured to contact a faceplate of the printhead with a solvent (col. 8, lines 48-62).
Murcia does not teach wherein the preservation station and purge station are displaced in the cross-process direction. Jackson teaches wherein a number of maintenance components are displaced from each other in the cross-process direction (Jackson, see fig. 1, Note a number of maintenance station components 50, 54, 60, 62, 56 displaced in cross-process direction 94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange maintenance components in the cross-process direction, as disclosed by Jackson, in the device disclosed by Murcia because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known arrangement of maintenance components for another to obtain predictable results. Further, the arrangement would allow for eliminating a motor associated with the movement of the maintenance carriage in the process direction by allowing for the carriage motor to effect relative movement between the maintenance area and the carriage.
Upon combination of the references, Murcia’s preservation station and purge station would be arranged outside of the print zone and spaced from each other in the cross-process direction.
(Note that the preamble of the claim is not being given patentable weight as it does not recite essential structure of the invention).
Regarding claim 2, Murcia in view of Jackson teaches printhead maintenance station of claims 1, the inkjet preservation station further comprising: a material (Murcia, fig. 4, item 135) configured to contact the faceplate of the printhead with the solvent (Murcia, see fig. 7) and the purge station further comprising a receptacle (Murcia, fig. 4, receptacle into which in is shown being purged) configured to receive the ink purged from the printhead and a wiper (Murcia, fig. 4, item 126) configured to move across the printhead and remove the purged ink from the printhead and into the receptacle (Murcia, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 35, Murcia in view of Jackson teaches printhead maintenance station of claim 1, wherein the predetermined distance is sufficient to allow a faceplate of the printhead to be positioned above the inkjet preservation station without overlapping the purge station (Jackson, see fig. 1, Note that each maintenance component is spaced in the cross-process direction so as to provide for the printhead to face only one component at any given time).
Regarding claims 36, Murcia in view of Jackson teaches printhead maintenance station of claims 1, wherein both the inkjet preservation station and the purge station are on the same side of the print zone (see claim 1 rejection).
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Murcia in view Jackson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Katsura (2020/0023610).
Regarding claims 3, Murcia in view of Jackson teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 2. Murcia in view of Jackson does not teach three layers of dissimilar materials. Katsura teaches this (Katsura, see fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laminate foam disclosed by Katsura as the wiping member disclosed by Murcia in view of Jackson because doing so would amount to combining a known foam laminate with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 4, Murcia in view of Jackson teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 3. Murcia in view of Jackson does not teach layers. Katsura teaches wherein the three layers comprise: are an inelastic layer (Katsura, fig. 1, item 2), a porous layer (Katsura, fig. 1, item 3) configured to provide the solvent (Katsura, fig. 1, note that it can be said that the entire ribbon, with all layers acting together, “provide the solvent” to the wiping surface); and a layer (Katsura, fig. 1, item 1) that enables the solvent provided from the porous layer to be released against the faceplate of the printhead (Katsura, fig. 1, Note that this is necessarily how the structure would work). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the laminate foam disclosed by Katsura as the wiping member disclosed by Murcia in view of Jackson because doing so would amount to combining a known foam laminate with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Upon combination of Katsura with Murcia in view of Jackson, the resultant device would operate in a manner that enables a solvent provided from the porous layer to be released against the faceplate of the printhead. That is, Katsura’s porous PTFE surface layer 1 would enable solvent contained within the layers to be released an applied to the nozzle surface of Murcia in view of Jackson.
Regarding claims 5, Murcia in view of Jackson and Katsura teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 4, wherein the inelastic layer is comprised essentially of polypropylene (Katsura, [0071]).
Regarding claims 6, Murcia in view of Jackson and Katsura teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 4, wherein the porous layer is comprised essentially of polymer foam (Katsura, [0031]) configured to absorb and hold the solvent (Katsura, [0031], Note that a polymer foam necessarily absorbs liquid and holds liquid).
Regarding claims 7, Murcia in view of Jackson and Katsura teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 4, wherein the layer that releases the solvent is comprised essentially of PTFE membrane material (Katsura, [0054]) configured to enable an amount of solvent to permeate the layer (Katsura, [0054]).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Murcia in view of Jackson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Genta et al. (20210221138).
Regarding claims 8, Murcia in view of Jackson teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 2. Murcia in view of Jackson does not teach wherein the material is configured as a ribbon and the ribbon is operatively connected to a first reel and a second reel, the first reel being operatively connected to an actuator to move the ribbon from the second reel to the first reel. Genta teaches this (Genta, see fig. 2, [0030], Note that this is how the wiper operates). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ribbon applicator of the type disclosed by Genta instead of the wicking element disclosed by Murcia in view of Jackson because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known solvent applicator tool for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 9, Murcia in view of Jackson and Genta teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 8, the actuator being operated to move the ribbon on a time of usage basis (Genta, see fig. 2, Note that each time the wiper is actuated, it is actuated for a certain amount of time).
Regarding claims 10, Murcia in view of Jackson and Genta teaches the printhead maintenance station of claim 8, the actuator being operated to move the ribbon on a number of times used basis (Genta, [0030], Note that the wiper is used a number of times. Note that the intention of the language is understood but broad as claimed and disclosed by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
