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 4 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. Claim 4 recites that it depends from claim 4. Correction is required.
Claims 7 and 17 are 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,” but until that point in the claims, both of “an inelastic layer” and “a layer” have been recited, and thus it is unclear as to which previously recited layer the layer is intended to refer. Clarification is required.
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, 2, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murcia et al. (6,481,822)
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Murcia teaches an inkjet printer and printhead maintenance station 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), the inkjet preservation station being configured to contact a faceplate of the printhead with a solvent (col. 8, lines 48-62).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Murcia teaches printhead maintenance station of claims 1 and 11, respectively, the inkjet preservation station further comprising: a material (fig. 4, item 135) configured to contact the faceplate of the printhead with the solvent (see fig. 7) and the purge station further comprising a receptacle (fig. 4, receptacle into which in is shown being purged) configured to receive the ink purged from the printhead and a wiper (fig. 4, item 126) configured to move across the printhead and remove the purged ink from the printhead and into the receptacle (see fig. 4).
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) 3-17 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Murcia in view of Katsura (2020/0023610).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Murcia teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 2 and 12, respectively. Murcia 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 because doing so would amount to combining a known foam laminate with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Murcia teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 4 and 11, respectively. Murcia 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 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, 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Murcia in view of Katsura teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 4 and 14, respectively, wherein the inelastic layer is comprised essentially of polypropylene (Katsura, [0071]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Murcia in view of Katsura teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 4 and 14, respectively 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 and 17, Murcia in view of Katsura teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 4 and 14, respectively, 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 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Murcia in view of Genta et al. (20210221138).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Murcia teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 2 and 12, respectively. Murcia 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 because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known solvent applicator tool for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Murcia in view of Genta teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 8 and 10, respectively, 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 and 20, Murcia in view of Genta teaches the printhead maintenance station of claims 8 and 18, respectively, 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 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Murcia.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights