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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-7), Species A2 (claim 4) and Species B1 (claim 5) in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3, 6 and 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 16, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0079539 to Inoue in view of JP2007-030453A to Mizutani et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent No. 4,454,519 to Oosaka et al.
As to claim 1, Inoue discloses a cleaning method of cleaning a recording apparatus including a recording head with a discharge port surface (see Inoue Abstract, paragraphs [0003] and [0005]), wherein the cleaning method is a method for cleaning the discharge port surface and the discharge port surface includes: a discharge port line in which a plurality of discharge ports configured to discharge a liquid is aligned in a first direction (see Inoue Fig. 4 and paragraph [0054] disclosing head unit 66 and inkjet line heads 64 wherein the inject line heads have nozzles), the cleaning method comprising: applying a cleaning liquid to the discharge port surface by a cleaning liquid application unit (see Inoue paragraph [0088]); and removing the cleaning liquid by a cleaning liquid removal unit (see Inoue paragraphs [0089]-[0095]).
Inoue does not explicitly disclose that the discharge port surface includes a hydrophilic part that is provided separated from the discharge port line and protrudes from the discharge port surface in a discharge direction of the liquid from the plurality of discharge ports and a water-repellant part that is located between the hydrophilic part and the discharge port line and wherein the removing the cleaning liquid occurs in a state where the cleaning liquid, applied to the discharge port surface in the applying of the cleaning liquid, has been moved onto the hydrophilic part. Mizutani discloses that it is known in the art to use a recording head wherein the discharge port surface includes a hydrophilic part that is provided separated from the discharge port line and a water-repellant part that is located between the hydrophilic part (see Mizutani Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0048]-[0051] disclosing hydrophilic part C1 and water repellant part B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Inoue such that the recording head has the discharge port surface includes a hydrophilic part that is provided separated from the discharge port line and a water-repellant part that is located between the hydrophilic part as disclosed by Mizutani in order to prevent ink and other contaminants for adhering to the nozzles (see Mizutani paragraph [0017]). Regarding the recitation that the removing the cleaning liquid occurs in a state where the cleaning liquid, applied to the discharge port surface in the applying of the cleaning liquid, has been moved onto the hydrophilic part, the combination of Inoue and Mizutani discloses that the recording head is given a soaking time period after contact with the cleaning liquid and Mizutani discloses that the liquids are moved to the hydrophilic part (see Inoue paragraph [0089] and Mizutani paragraphs [0048]-[0051]).
The combination of Inoue and Mizutani does not explicitly disclose that the hydrophilic part protrudes from the discharge port surface in a discharge direction of the liquid from the plurality of discharge ports. Oosaka discloses a similar ink jet head wherein the hydrophilic part protrudes from the surface (see Oosaka Fig. 4, ref.#8a’-8d’; col. 4, line 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the hydrophilic part protrude from the discharge port surface as disclosed by Oosaka as is known in the art and the results would have been predictable (mere design choice).
As to claim 2, the combination of Inoue, Mizutani and Oosaka discloses that the plurality of discharge port lines can be arranged on the discharge port surface in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and a plurality of hydrophilic parts is provided in correspondence with the plurality of discharge port lines and wherein applying of the cleaning liquid includes applying of the cleaning liquid via the cleaning liquid application unit to the plurality of discharge port lines, the plurality of hydrophilic parts and the water-repellant part (see Mizutani Fig. 7 disclosing a plurality of discharge port lines in a second direction intersecting the first direction and a plurality of hydrophilic parts provided in correspondence with the plurality of discharge port lines; see Inoue Figs. 7A-7D disclosing cleaning the bottom of the head which would include the plurality of discharge port lines, the plurality of hydrophilic parts and the water-repellant part).
As to claim 7, the combination of Inoue, Mizutani and Oosaka discloses the cleaning of a recording apparatus and it is known in the art that liquid (ink) contains a color and a resin particle (see, e.g., Mizutani paragraph [0002], [0044]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0079539 to Inoue in view of JP2007-030453A to Mizutani et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent No. 4,454,519 to Oosaka et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2007-168293A to Ito et al. (see machine translation).
Inoue, Mizutani and Oosaka are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4, the combination of Inoue, Mizutani and Oosaka does not explicitly disclose that the cleaning liquid removal unit has a nozzle formed of an elastic member, the cleaning method further comprising bringing the nozzle into contact with the discharge port surface while inside of the nozzle is reduced in pressure by a negative generation mechanism and sliding the nozzle on the discharge port surface to suck and remove the cleaning liquid. Ito discloses that it is known in the art to use a nozzle formed of an elastic member and bringing the nozzle into contact with the discharge port surface while inside of the nozzle is reduced in pressure by a negative generation mechanism to remove liquid (see Ito Fig. 10; paragraphs [0024] and [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the liquid removal unit of Ito and the results would have been obvious (removal of cleaning liquid; see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0079539 to Inoue in view of JP2007-030453A to Mizutani et al. (see machine translation) and U.S. Patent No. 4,454,519 to Oosaka et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0194141 to Araki et al.
Inoue, Mizutani and Oosaka are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 4, the combination of Inoue, Mizutani and Oosaka does not explicitly disclose that the hydrophilic part is formed of a material with a water contact angle of less than 90 degrees. Araki discloses a similar ink jet head wherein the liquid contact angle is a known results effect variable (see Araki paragraphs [0049]-[0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the hydrophilic part with a material with a water contact angle of less than 90 degrees as disclosed by Araki in order to reduce the possibility of the cleaning liquid flowing to the ink ejection side (see Araki paragraph [0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714