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 Amendment
The amendment filed March 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims, Specification, and Drawings have overcome each objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on December 19th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that a combination of the prior art fails to teach the claimed invention of independent claim 1. Specifically, as understood by the examiner, the applicant argues that because Ohnishi does not teach an overlap of wipers with any rollers that convey a medium, a combination of Kachi 2005, Kachi 2006, and Ohnishi does not teach a wiper being rotated between a first and second posture and the second posture of the wiper as overlapping with one roller of a second conveyance roller pair when viewed in a medium conveying direction.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary reference of Kachi 2005 teaches both a second conveyance roller pair and an overlap of a wiper in a second posture with one roller of the second conveyance roller pair. Because the overlap is taught by Kachi 2005, Ohnishi does not need to teach the overlap. Ohnishi needs to further teach the rotation between the two postures of the wiper as that is the limitation not taught by Kachi 2005. Detailed explanation of the rejection for claim 1 on this basis can be read in “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” below.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “… one roller of a second conveyance roller pair…”, in lines 22-23 of the claim. This recitation is inconsistent with line 10 of the claim wherein the limitation, “a second conveyance roller pair…”, is first recited. For examination purposes, claim 1 will be examined such that the later limitation recites:
“… one roller of [[the second conveyance roller pair…”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “a second conveyance roller pair located downstream of a position facing the liquid discharge head in the medium conveying direction, the second conveyance roller pair being configured to convey the medium”, in lines 2-4 of the claim. This exact limitation is a duplicate of the limitation recited in lines 10-12 of amended claim 1 of which claim 6 is ultimately dependent on. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be examined such that it recites:
“The recording device according to claim 2,
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kachi (US 20050162452 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kachi 2005, in view of Kachi et al. (US 20060066665 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kachi 2006, and Ohnishi (US 20170157935 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ohnishi.
Regarding claim 1, Kachi 2005 teaches a recording device (image forming device 10; [0041]; Fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid discharge head (recording head 12; [0042]; Figs. 2, 5 and 8)
including a plurality of nozzles (plurality of nozzle groups 50; [0053]; Fig. 2) configured to discharge liquid onto a medium,
the liquid discharge head being elongated in a medium width direction, the medium width direction being a direction intersecting a medium conveying direction (“recording head 12 is constituted by a so-called full line type head, wherein a line type head having a length corresponding to the width of the recording paper 16 is disposed in a fixed position, in a direction orthogonal to the paper conveyance direction”; [0042]);
a facing portion (nozzle restoring devices 62; [0057]; Figs 1 and 5; nozzle restoring devices 156; [0087]; Fig. 8) disposed facing the liquid discharge head;
a wiper (wiping blades 68; [0057], Fig. 5; [0087]; Fig. 8) configured to wipe a head surface of the liquid discharge head by moving in the medium conveying direction with respect to the liquid discharge head (wiping blades 68 are raised to contact the lower surface of recording head 12 then moved in the paper conveyance direction to wipe; [0059]; Fig. 5; [0088]; Fig. 8);
a first conveyance roller pair located upstream of the facing portion in the medium conveying direction and configured to convey the medium (pick up rollers 21; [0046]; Fig. 1; pressure roller 151 and roller 160; [0086]; Fig. 8); and
a second conveyance roller pair located downstream of a position facing the liquid discharge head in the medium conveying direction wherein the second conveyance roller pair are configured to convey the medium (rollers below 22 arrow; portion of Fig. 1 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the facing portion is movable, by moving along the medium conveying direction (nozzle restoring devices 62 move along the direction of conveyance of the recording paper 16; [0057]; Fig. 5 white double-sided arrow; nozzle restoring devices 156 move along the direction of conveyance of the recording paper 16 ; [0087]; Fig. 8 long left arrows),
to a recording position (original or initial position; [0078]; Fig. 5; [0088]; Fig. 8) at which the facing portion faces the liquid discharge head and a retreat position to which the facing portion retreats from the recording position (there must exist a position different than the initial position from which the nozzle restoring devices move to in order to return to their original position), the recording position being a position of the facing portion when recording is performed on the medium (Figs. 5 and 8),
the wiper is provided at the facing portion (wiping blades 68 are part of nozzle restoring devices 62 or 156; [0057]; Fig. 5; [0087]; Fig. 8) switchably between a first posture in which the wiper is configured to wipe the head surface (raised to contact or advanced toward recording heads 12 by raising and lowering devices 70; [0057]; [0059]; Fig. 5; [0087]; Fig. 8) and a second posture in which the wiper is farther from the head surface than in the first posture (lowered or retracted from recording heads 12 by raising and lowering devices 70; [0057]; Fig. 5; [0087]),
in the second posture, the wiper overlaps with one roller of a second conveyance roller pair when viewed from the medium conveying direction (annotated portion of Fig. 5 below),
PNG
media_image2.png
449
863
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the wiper wipes the head surface when the facing portion moves along the medium conveying direction with the wiper being in the first posture (wiping blades 68 are raised to contact the lower surface of recording head 12 then moved in the paper conveyance direction to wipe the surface; [0059]; Fig. 5; [0088]; Fig. 8).
Further regarding claim 1, Kachi 2005 does not explicitly teach the use of a motor to move the facing portion along the medium conveying direction (movement device 71 does not explicitly list a motor or such as an example of the movement device; [0057]; [0087]).
However, Kachi 2006 teaches a similar recording device with wiping mechanism to Kachi 2005 (inkjet recording apparatus 10; [0088]; Fig. 1) wherein the facing portion (wiper tray 92; [0171]; Figs. 9; support platform 142; [0215]; Fig. 19) is moveable along the medium conveying direction by power of a motor (slider motor 99; [0171]; Fig9; [0216]; Fig. 19) that controls a wheel (pinion) and rack.
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 device described in Kachi 2005 to use a motor as the device that controls the movement of the facing portion in order to make it possible to have fine positional control of the posture of the wiper as taught by Kachi 2006 ([0177]).
Further regarding claim 1, Kachi 2005 teaches the use of a device for changing the posture of the wipers (raising and lowering devices 70; [0057]; Fig. 5; [0087]; Fig. 8), but not the explicit use of a motor. Additionally, Kachi 2005 does not explicitly teach the wiper as being rotated between the first and second posture.
Kachi 2006 teaches the use of a second motor (elevator motor 105; [0176]; Figs. 11 and 19) to change the posture of the wipers ([0177]; Figs. 11 and Fig. 19).
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 device described in Kachi 2005 to use a motor as the device that controls the movement of the wiper posture in order to make it possible to control the position of the facing portion to a high degree of accuracy as taught by Kachi 2006 ([0171]).
Ohnishi teaches the wiper for an inkjet head being rotated between a first and second posture by use of a motor (“The second motors 88 rotate the support shafts 87, whereby the wipers 83 are swung between exposure positions P1 and dip positions P2. The exposure positions P1 are examples of a first position. The dip positions P2 are examples of a second position”; [0075]; Fig. 3) provided at the facing portion (storage tank 41; [0058]; Fig. 3).
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 wiper so that it switches between a first posture and a second posture by being rotated by power of a motor provided at the facing portion such that the wiper wipes the head in the first posture as taught by Ohnishi ([0105]; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Kachi 2005 teaches a recording device wherein the wiper is provided at a position upstream of the facing portion in the medium conveying direction (wiping blades 68 are on the upstream side of the nozzle restoring devices 62 and 156; Figs. 5 and 8).
Regarding claim 4, Kachi 2005 teaches a control unit (printer controller 110; [0066]; Fig. 7) that drives the movement devices for switching the wiper to the first posture from the second posture to contact the head surface while the facing portion is at the recording position and then moves the facing portion from the recording position to the retreat position so the wipers can wipe the head surface ([0078]).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kachi 2005 as modified by Kachi 2006 and Ohnishi as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Higuchi (US 20180264824 A1), hereinafter referred to as Higuchi.
Regarding claim 5, Kachi 2005 as modified by Kachi 2006 and Ohnishi teaches a cap portion located below the facing portion at the recording position (Kachi 2006: cap 64; [0134]; Fig. 6) and configured to cover the head surface (Kachi 2006: “the nozzle region of the nozzle surface 50A is thereby covered by the cap 64”; [0137]),
wherein at least one of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion is provided movably in a direction of advancing and retreating with respect to the other of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion (Kachi 2006: “cap 64 is displaced upward and downward in a relative fashion with respect to the print head 50 by an elevator mechanism”; [0137]),
and the cap portion covers the head surface when at least one of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion advances with respect to the other of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion (Kachi 2006: “elevator mechanism raises the cap 64 to a predetermined elevated position so as to come into close contact with the print head 50, and the nozzle region of the nozzle surface 50A is thereby covered by the cap 64”; [0137]).
Further regarding claim 5, Kachi 2005 as modified by Kachi 2006 and Ohnishi does not teach that when moving the facing portion from the retreat position to the recording position with the cap portion located below the facing portion after execution of the second step, the control unit brings the wiper into the second posture and stops the facing portion for a predetermined time with the wiper located above the cap portion for the purpose of collecting the liquid removed by the wiper in the cap portion.
However, Kachi 2005 teaches that the facing portion is stopped in the recording position with the wiper in the second posture (Figs. 5 and 8) and the wiper wiping process is carried out for/at a set time (processing for restoring the recording head 12… is carried out at a predetermined time or after a predetermined number of printing operations”; [0075]) with all motions and positions controlled by a control unit (print controller 110; Fig. 7).
Additionally, Higuchi teaches the use of a cap portion below the wiper such that after removing liquid from the head surface, the wiper is switched to an inclined position and the wiped liquid is dropped into the cap portion disposed below (“it is possible to let the recording liquid adhered to the wiper member 207 fall into the cap from the wiper member 207”; [0068]; Fig. 3A).
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 control unit to bring the wiper into the second posture after wiping in the first posture and stop the facing portion in the recording position for a predetermined time with the wiper located above the cap portion so that the liquid on the wiper is dropped into and collected by the cap portion as taught by Higuchi ([0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Kachi 2005 as modified by Kachi 2006 and Ohnishi teaches a cap portion located below the facing portion at the recording position (Kachi 2006: cap 64; [0134]; Fig. 6) and configured to cover the head surface (Kachi 2006: “the nozzle region of the nozzle surface 50A is thereby covered by the cap 64”; [0137]),
wherein at least one of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion is provided movably in a direction of advancing and retreating with respect to the other of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion (Kachi 2006: “cap 64 is displaced upward and downward in a relative fashion with respect to the print head 50 by an elevator mechanism”; [0137]),
and the cap portion covers the head surface when at least one of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion advances with respect to the other of the liquid discharge head or the cap portion (Kachi 2006: “elevator mechanism raises the cap 64 to a predetermined elevated position so as to come into close contact with the print head 50, and the nozzle region of the nozzle surface 50A is thereby covered by the cap 64”; [0137]).
Further regarding claim 8, Kachi 2005 as modified by Kachi 2006 and Ohnishi does not teach the cap portion as including a first edge portion extending in a width direction intersecting the medium conveying direction and a second edge portion located downstream of the first edge portion in the medium conveying direction, wherein a distance between the second edge portion and the head surface being longer than a distance between the first edge portion and the head surface in a state in which the cap portion is separated from the liquid discharge head. It also does not teach that when moving the facing portion from the retreat position to the recording position with the cap portion located below the facing portion after execution of the second step, the control unit brings the wiper into the second posture and stops the facing portion for a predetermined time with the wiper located above the cap portion.
However, Higuchi teaches an inclined cap member configured to cover the head surface when in contact with the liquid discharge head ([0010]). The disclosed cap member has a left end portion and right end portion such that when the cap is retracted from the head, the cap is inclined so the left-end portion is more downward than the right-end portion (cap head 4 and liquid droplet jetting head 2 [0055]; Figs. 2-3B). Therefore, a first edge portion (right-end portion) is closer and has less distance from the head surface (nozzle surface) than the second edge portion (left-end portion) when not in contact with the head surface (Fig. 3A).
MPEP 2144.04 IV A on Changes in Size/Proportion states:
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2144.04 VI C on Rearrangement of Parts states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
The change in size/proportion in this claimed invention include the size/proportions of the first and second edge portions of the cap portion. The change of the two edge portions claimed extend in the direction intersecting the medium conveyance direction rather instead of along the medium conveyance direction does not change the function of covering the head surface and collecting the ink as also taught by prior art; i.e. the overall size/proportions or the cap portion are changed from wide in the medium conveyance direction to wide in the direction intersecting the medium conveyance direction with no functional change.
Further regarding claim 8, Higuchi teaches a wiper contacting one edge of the inclined cap portion while inclined so that liquid wiped by the wiper is removed by the edge of the cap portion (wiper member 207 covers the cap member 4 from the upper side. The posture of the wiper member 207 being inclined as compared with the conventional posture, it is possible to let the recording liquid adhered to the wiper member 207 fall into the cap from the wiper member 207; [0068]; Fig. 3A).
The rearrangement parts in this claimed invention include the placement contact of the wiper with respect the first and second edge portions. The wiper contacting the higher first edge portion instead of the lower second edge portion does not change the function; ink on the wiper is still removed and collected by the cap portion wherein the wiper is in contact with an edge portion while inclined.
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 cap portion to be inclined with a first edge portion closer to the head surface than a second edge portion such that when the control unit brings the wiper into the second posture and moves the facing portion in the recording position, the wiper contacts the first edge portion of the cap portion so that the liquid on the wiper is removed and collected in the cap portion as taught by Higuchi ([0068]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kachi 2005 as modified by Kachi 2006 and Ohnishi as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Araki et al. (US 20180264824 A1), hereinafter referred to as Araki.
Regarding claim 6, Kachi 2005 as modified by Kachi 2006 and Ohnishi do not teach the facing portion located at the retreat position being located below the second conveyance roller pair.
However, Araki teaches an inkjet recording apparatus and head cleaning mechanism (title) wherein the facing portion (wipe unit 19) is below the conveyance roller pair downstream of the liquid discharge head (“The second conveying unit 12 has a structure including a second drive roller 13 , a second driven roller 14”; [0055]; “a wipe unit 19 and a cap unit 90 are disposed below the second conveying unit 12”; [0058]; Fig. 1) when the facing portion is not below the liquid discharge head.
Regarding claim 7, Kachi 2006 teaches a second conveyance roller pair including a driving roller (roller 32 may be driven by power of motor 88; Fig. 1) with a roller disposed above it. Araki also teaches the second conveyance roller pair as being a driven roller (second driven roller 14; [0055]; Fig. 1) and driving roller (second drive roller 13; [0055]; Fig. 1), but they both would contact the same side of the medium.
MPEP 2144.04 VI C on Rearrangement of Parts states:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
The rearrangement parts in this claimed invention include (1) the placement of the driving and driven rollers downstream of the liquid discharge head and (2) the facing portion is below the downstream rollers when in a retreat position. Kachi 2006 demonstrates a downstream driving roller (roller 32 may be driven by power of motor 88; Fig. 1) with a roller disposed above it. Additionally, Kachi 2006 has downstream rollers to preserve or improve the recording quality (heating/pressurizing unit 44 has rollers and controls the glossiness of the printed image; [0111]; Fig. 1). The second conveyance roller pair taught by Araki is disposed horizontally to each other, both facing the same direction with respect to the medium. To preserve the function of conveyance, the rollers could be rearranged one over the other such that they contact opposite sides of the medium. The facing portion being in a position below the second conveyance roller pair does not critically affect their functions .
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 second conveyance roller pair to be downstream of the liquid discharge head wherein facing portion to be located below it when at the retreat position and for the second conveyance roller pair to include a driven roller configured to contact the surface of the medium facing the liquid discharge head and the driving roller as taught by Araki. Aside from print quality, the primary job of the conveyance rollers is to convey the medium. The rearrangement of parts demonstrated by the claimed invention does not critically change the function of the parts as demonstrated 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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.
6 April 2026
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights