DETAILED ACTION
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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansell et al. (6,709,087) in view of Ohashi et al. (2018/0236797).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ansell teaches a liquid ejecting apparatus comprising:
a slide mechanism (figs. 1, 2, items 13, 2.5) that has a first member (figs. 1, 2, item 2.5) and a second member (figs. 1, 2, item 13)
a head (fig. 1, item 2) that is fixed to the first member and has a nozzle for ejecting a liquid (see figs. 1, 2);
a lifting and lowering mechanism (figs. 1, 2, note that there is necessarily a carriage scan motor) that is fixed to the second member (see figs. 1, 2, note that all components are part of a single printer device and thus are fixed to each other), and lifts and lowers the head in the lifting and lowering directions (see figs. 1, 2, note that the carriage scan motor affects the pivoting, i.e., lifting and lowering, of the carriage); and
a cap (figs. 1, 2, item 8) that covers the nozzle.
Ansell does not teach a slide mechanism configured to slide in lifting and lowering directions or wherein the slide mechanism includes a first wall surface extending in the lifting and lowering directions, a second wall surface extending in a direction intersecting the lifting and lowering directions, a slide member that slides with respect to the first wall surface while being in contact with the first wall surface, and an abutting surface configured to change presence and absence of contact with the second wall surface by sliding of the slide member. Ohashi teaches this (Ohashi, fig. 10, Note slide mechanism 503/803 with first member 803 and second member 503 that slide with each other in a lifting/lowering direction. Note that the lifting and lowering directions are being taken to be those between -X and +Z and +X and -Z. Note that the first wall surface is being taken to be that on which the first member is shown sliding in figure 10B, which is parallel to the lifting and lowering directions, and the second wall surface is being taken to be abutted by first member 803 in figures 10C, 10D, the second wall surface being perpendicular to the first). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lifting and lowering arrangement disclosed by Ohashi for the lifting and lowering mechanism of Ansell because doing so would allow for a larger space to be created between the printhead and the platen upon lifting of the printhead, thereby facilitating a wider range of maintenance of printhead maintenance capabilities.
Note that, upon combination of the references, the resultant device would meet the limitation: wherein the lifting and lowering mechanism relatively moves the head toward the cap in a state where contact between the abutting surface and the second wall surface is maintained. That is, the abutting surface would be in contact with the second wall surface while the head was further lowered to contact the cap and compress the cap spring.
Regarding claim 2, Ansell in view of Ohashi teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a cap holder (Ansell, fig. 1, item 7) for holding the cap (Ansell, see fig. 1),
a first spring (Ansell, fig. 1, item 14) fixed between the cap and the cap holder (Ansell, see fig. 1), wherein
the lifting and lowering mechanism moves the head toward the cap to compress the first spring in a state where the abutting surface is in contact with the second wall surface (Ansell, see figs. 1, 2).
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansell in view of Ohashi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of official notice.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Ansell in view of Ohashi and official notice teaches the liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 2 above, wherein
the slide mechanism further comprising:
a second spring (Ansell, fig. 5, item 21) that urges the abutting surface and the second wall surface in a direction in which the abutting surface and the second wall surface are separated from each other (Ansell, see figs. 1, 2, 5, note that this is the case);
a third wall surface (Ohashi, see fig. 10, note wall opposite second wall surface, as defined above) that is a surface extending in a direction intersecting the lifting and lowering directions (Ohashi, fig. 10), and facing a side opposite to the second wall surface (Ohashi, fig. 10); and
a second abutting surface (Ohashi, fig. 10, note second and third abutting surfaces on opposite sides of first member 803 each abutting one of the second and third surfaces) configured to change presence and absence of contact with the third wall surface by sliding of the slide member (Ohashi, see fig. 10).
Ansell in view of Ohashi does not teach wherein a spring constant of the second spring is smaller than a spring constant of the first spring. Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the spring constant of the cap spring 14 larger that the spring constant of the mounting spring 21 because the need to maintain a vacuum by the cap during maintenance would necessarily require a stiff spring against which to press the cap while the mounting spring could be less stiff so as to allow a user to insert the mounted assembly.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to arrive at optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, Ansell in view of Ohashi teaches all of the claimed components but does not expressly teach relative spring constants for the first and second springs. Examiner maintains that such relative spring constants have been arrived at by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Ansell in view of Ohashi and official notice teaches liquid ejecting apparatus according to claim 7, wherein
a length of the second spring in a state where the second abutting surface of the slide member is in contact with the third wall surface is longer than a movement amount that the slide member moves from a position where the second abutting surface comes into contact with the third wall surface to a position where the abutting surface comes into contact with the second wall surface (Ansell, fig. 5, Note that, because a spring, even at its most compressed state, still has a length, the length of the second spring will always exceed a distance between and uppermost position and a lowermost position of the sliding apparatus).
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 Ohashi.
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