DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 11 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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first nozzle group configured to eject the first liquid including an inorganic pigment” and “the first nozzle group configured to eject the first liquid which does not include the inorganic pigment” and “the inorganic pigment” lack 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.
Claim 12 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 seems to state that the same first liquid can both have an inorganic pigment and be devoid of an inorganic pigment. The same liquid must have the same characteristics. Correction 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, 4, 5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Yamada et al. (2023/0347675) in view of Caleshu (5,476,518) and Inoue (8,622,514).
Regarding claim 1 and 14, Yamada teaches a liquid ejection device comprising:
a liquid ejection unit (fig. 2, item 43) having a first nozzle group (fig. 2, item 42b) and configured to eject a first liquid to a cloth conveyed (fig. 1, item 95), and a second nozzle group (fig. 2, item 42a) configured to eject a second liquid and to the cloth (see fig. 2);
wherein
the first liquid is aqueous ink ([0037]) and the second liquid and is a liquid including a softening agent ([0130], note that the treatment liquid has a softener), and
the second nozzle group is configured to execute a softening treatment of ejecting the second liquid to the cloth (fig. 2, Note that treatment liquid nozzles eject treatment liquid with softener).
Yamada does not teach a specific fabric softener.
Caleshu teaches wherein a dimethyl silicone can be used as a softener (Caleshu, col. 4, line 29). 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 dimethyl silicone disclosed by Caleshu as the softener of Yamada because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Yamada in view Caleshu does not teach a wiping unit configured to wipe a nozzle surface on which the first nozzle group is disposed, wherein the second nozzle group is configured to execute a water repellent treatment of making the second cloth, liquid adhere to the nozzle surface.
Inoue teaches a wet wiping technique whereby liquid from a corresponding print head is seeped out from an ejection nozzle so as to cover the nozzle surface an facilitate smoother wiping with a wiper (Inoue, col. 25, lines 35-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the wet wiping method disclosed by Inoue to the device disclosed by Yamada in view of Caleshu because doing so would allow for more thorough wiping of the nozzle surface.
Upon combination, the treatment head of Yamada would seep liquid containing dimethyl silicone oil out onto its nozzle surface, thereby forming a water repellent film.
Regarding claim 4, Yamada in view of Caleshu and Inoue teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the wiping unit wipes the nozzle surface after the water repellent treatment, and before the first nozzle group ejects the first liquid to the cloth (Inoue, col. 25, lines 35-50).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada in view of Caleshu and Inoue teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein defining the nozzle surface as a first nozzle surface, the liquid ejection unit has a second nozzle surface on which the second nozzle group is disposed (Yamada, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada in view of Caleshu and Inoue teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the liquid ejection unit has a plurality of the first nozzle groups, and the second nozzle group arranged at a position the second nozzle group is closer to the first nozzle group configured to eject the first liquid including an inorganic pigment than to the first nozzle group configured to eject the first liquid which does not include the inorganic pigment (Yamada, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada in view of Caleshu and Inoue teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, further comprising: a drying unit configured to dry the second liquid which adheres to the nozzle surface (Yamada, fig. 1, item 27, Note that heater necessarily causes drying of all liquids including the second liquid on the nozzle surface).
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, 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