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) 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannai et al. (2014/0192121) in view of Eto et al. (2023/0391083).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a head unit configured to eject a liquid to a medium while reciprocating along a second axis that is perpendicular to a first axis along a transport direction of the medium, the head unit comprising:
a plurality of liquid ejecting head (fig. 3, item pre-processing fluid applying head, discharging ink head and post-processing fluid head), wherein the plurality of liquid ejecting head include
a first head (fig. 3, ink discharging head) configured to eject a first liquid ([0096]),
a reaction liquid head (fig. 3, pre-processing fluid ejecting head) configured to eject a reaction liquid that aggregates the first liquid ([0104]), and
a treatment liquid head (fig. 3, post-processing fluid discharging head) configured to eject a treatment liquid containing a softening agent ([0036], [0079]-[0083], silicone oil).
Bannai does not teach a plurality of liquid ejecting head including a reaction liquid head, wherein the first head and the reaction liquid head are located at a same position in a direction along the first axis and at different positions in a direction along the second axis, no head is disposed between the first head and the reaction liquid head along the second axis, and an ejection surface of the treatment liquid head and an ejection surface of the first head overlap each other when viewed in a direction along the first axis and the treatment liquid head and the first head are located at different positions in the direction along the first axis. Eto teaches this (Eto, see fig. 9, see illustration below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the three liquids and application order disclosed by Bannai with the printhead disclosed by Eto because doing so would amount to adapting the specifics of the page-width printer disclosed by Bannai to the scanning-type printer disclosed by Eto to obtain predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bannai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 1, wherein the first liquid is an ink containing a coloring material (Bannai, [0096]).
Regarding claim 3, Bannai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 2, wherein the first liquid is an ink containing an inorganic pigment (Bannai, [0098]).
Regarding claim 4, Bannai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of liquid ejecting head include a second head (Eto, fig. 7, head 4AA, 4AC) configured to eject a second liquid that is aggregated by the reaction liquid (fig. 9, note that all inks are aggregated), the first head and the second head are adjacent to each other and are arranged along the second axis, and a first distance between the first head and the treatment liquid head in the direction along the first axis is shorter than a second distance between the first head and the second head in a direction along the second axis (Eto, see fig. 7, Note that, as defined, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 5, Bannai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of liquid ejecting head include a second head (Eto, fig. 7, head 4AA, 4AC) configured to eject a second liquid (note that different head eject different colors of ink) that is aggregated by the reaction liquid (Eto, fig. 7, note that all inks are aggregated), the first head (Eto, fig. 7, head 4BA, 4BC) and the second head are adjacent to each other and are arranged along the second axis (Eto, see fig. 7), and a third distance between the first head and the reaction liquid head in a direction along the second axis is longer than a second distance between the first head and the second head in the direction along the second axis (Eto, see fig. 7, Note that, as defined, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 6, Banai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of liquid ejecting head include a third head (Eto, fig. 7, item 6) configured to eject a post-treatment liquid that is aggregated by the reaction liquid, and the third head is disposed to be arranged with the first head and the reaction liquid head in a direction along the second axis (Eto, see fig. 7, Note that all head can be said to be “arranged with” the first head “in a direction along the second axis.” That is, all head generally form an array along the second axis).
Regarding claim 7, Bannai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 6. Bannai in view of Eto does not teach wherein the plurality of liquid ejecting head include a fourth head (Eto, fig. 7, item 6) configured to eject the post-treatment liquid, and the fourth head is disposed to be arranged with the treatment liquid head in the direction along the second axis (Eto, fig. 7, Note that all head are “arranged with” all other head “along” the second axis).
Regarding claim 11, Bannai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 1, wherein the treatment liquid is less likely to aggregate with the reaction liquid than the first liquid (Bannai, see fig. 3, Note that “less likely to react’ has not been defined. Here, because the first liquid is deposited on the medium between deposition of the reaction liquid and the treatment liquid, the treatment liquid is less likely to react with the reaction liquid than is the first liquid).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannai in view of Eto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanaoka et al. (2022/0355600).
Regarding claim 12, Bannai in view of Eto teaches the head unit according to claim 1. Bannai in view of Eto does not teach wherein each of a shape of an ejection surface of the first head and a shape of an ejection surface of the treatment liquid head includes a first portion, a second portion that is adjacent to the first portion and protrudes from the first portion in the transport direction, and a third portion that is adjacent to the first portion and protrudes from the first portion in a direction opposite to the second portion, a dimension of the second portion in a direction along the second axis is smaller than half a dimension of the first portion in the direction along the second axis, the second portion is located in the direction along the second axis with respect to a first center line that extends in the transport direction and is a center line of the first portion, which passes through a center of the first portion in the direction along the second axis, a dimension of the third portion in the direction along the second axis is smaller than half a dimension of the first portion in the direction along the second axis, the second portion and the third portion are located on opposite sides to interpose the first center line, and a portion of the ejection surface of at least one of the first head and the reaction liquid head overlaps a portion of the ejection surface of the treatment liquid head when viewed in the direction along the second axis. Hanaoka teaches the same shape of ejection surface for the head as disclosed in the present application (Hanaoka, see fig. 3, Note shape of head is that same as disclosed in Figure 3 of the immediate application). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use head of the shape disclosed by Hanaoka instead of the head of the shape disclosed by Bannai in view of Eto because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of head of one known shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
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
