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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Onishi structurally teaches the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the cleaning method: the cleaning liquid can be securely held by the cleaning liquid supply member, and an appropriate amount of the cleaning liquid can be supplied at the time of wiping operation (when the blade moves).) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2011051281 A to Onishi.
With regard to Claim 1, Onishi teaches an ink jet recording apparatus (1) comprising:
an inkjet head (40) provided with a nozzle surface (42) on which ink ejection ports of a plurality of nozzles (not labeled) are opened;
a blade (121) movable with respect to the nozzle surface (42) while being in contact with the nozzle surface to perform a wiping operation; and
a cleaning liquid supply member (103) which supplies a cleaning liquid to at least one of the nozzle surface and the blade (121),
wherein the cleaning liquid supply member includes:
a supply hole (not labeled) through which the cleaning liquid is discharged; and a mesh member (107) provided inside an opening of the supply hole (104) and having a mesh size smaller than the opening [0028].
With regard to Claim 4, Onishi teaches wherein the cleaning liquid supply member (103) has a hollow space (104) in which the supplied cleaning liquid is stored (102), the supply hole is communicated with the hollow apace, and the mesh member is attached on a bottom surface of the hollow space (fig. 3).
With regard to Claim 5, Onishi teaches further comprising: a cleaning liquid supply mechanism (100) which is disposed separated away from the inkjet head (40) and supplies the cleaning liquid (fig. 3, not labeled) to the cleaning liquid supply member (103), wherein the cleaning liquid supply member (103) is supplied with the cleaning liquid from the cleaning liquid supply mechanism (100), is then separated away from the cleaning liquid supply mechanism and moved to a position where it can be in contact with the nozzle surface while holding the supplied cleaning liquid.
With regard to Claim 6, Onishi teaches wherein the cleaning liquid supply mechanism includes a cleaning liquid tank (102) for storing the cleaning liquid and a pump (105) which pumps the cleaning liquid from the cleaning liquid tank (102) and supplies the cleaning liquid to the cleaning liquid supply member (103).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi as modified by JP 2017-193161A to Midorikawa.
With regard to Claim 7, Onishi teaches the claimed invention except for further comprising: a wipe unit including the blade and the cleaning liquid supply member, wherein as the wipe unit moves, the blade and the cleaning liquid supply member are moved.
However, Midorikawa teaches further comprising: a wipe unit including the blade and the cleaning liquid supply member, wherein as the wipe unit moves, the blade and the cleaning liquid supply member are moved. The machine English translation teaches
"As shown in FIG. 4, the blade unit 67 is disposed on one side in the direction with respect to the unit frame 65. The blade unit 67 wipes the ejection surface of each inkjet head 5 in the process in which the cleaning unit 61 moves from the facing position to the retracted position." This is found to teach the claimed limitation, because if the wiper, wipes, it is moving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the wiping unit as claimed to make the printer more compact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 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. .
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 2 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the mesh member has a size larger than the opening. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 3 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein a plurality of the mesh members is overlapped. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claims allowable over the prior art.
Please note that if applicants amends claim 1 to include allowable subject matter of claims 2 or 3, there may be a matter of duplicate claims as related to claim 8. Please see MPEP § 706.03 (k).
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The Examiner is persuaded by Applicant’s remarks, on pages 6-7, filed 3/2/2026. The prior art does not teach or render obvious a mesh member having a size larger than the supply hole. The amendments patentably distinguish the claims over the combination of Onishi and Midorikawa.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Communication with the PTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON A POLK whose telephone number is (571)270-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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 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.
SHARON A. POLK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/Sharon Polk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights