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 heads (fig. 3, item pre-processing fluid applying head, discharging ink head and post-processing fluid head), wherein the plurality of liquid ejecting heads include
a group of first heads (fig. 3, ink discharging heads) 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 groups of liquid ejecting heads including a group of reaction liquid heads, wherein the group of first heads and the group of reaction liquid heads are adjacent to each other and are arranged along the second axis so that no head is disposed between the group of first heads and the group of reaction liquid heads along the second axis, and the treatment liquid head is arranged within the group of first heads along the first axis. Eto teaches this (Eto, see fig. 7, Note a line parallel to the second axis can be drawn through the group of first heads 4 and the group of reaction liquid heads 5/S direction, and note that treatment liquid head 6A is “arranged within” the group of first heads 4 along the first axis. Note that “group” has not been defined, and as disclosed by Eto, each group of heads contains empty space between the heads, meaning the space occupied by any group of heads can be arbitrarily drawn to include empty spaces around the heads. Note that all heads can be said to be “adjacent” each other. Note that “arranged within” can mean almost anything). 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.
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 heads include a group of second heads (Eto, fig. 7, heads 4AA, 4AC) configured to eject a second liquid that is aggregated by the reaction liquid (fig. 9, note that all inks are aggregated), the group of first heads and the group of second heads are adjacent to each other and are arranged along the second axis, and a first distance between the group of first heads and the treatment liquid head in the direction along the first axis is shorter than a second distance between the group of first heads and the group of second heads 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 heads include a group of second heads (Eto, fig. 7, heads 4AA, 4AC) configured to eject a second liquid (note that different heads eject different colors of ink) that is aggregated by the reaction liquid (Eto, fig. 7, note that all inks are aggregated), the group of first heads (Eto, fig. 7, heads 4BA, 4BC) and the group of second heads are adjacent to each other and are arranged along the second axis (Eto, see fig. 7), and a third distance between the group of first heads and the group of reaction liquid heads in a direction along the second axis is longer than a second distance between the group of first heads and the group of second heads 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 heads include a group of third heads (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 group of first heads and the group of reaction liquid heads in a direction along the second axis (Eto, see fig. 7, Note that all heads can be said to be “arranged with” the group of first heads “in a direction along the second axis.” That is, all heads 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 heads include a group of fourth heads (Eto, fig. 7, item 6) configured to eject the post-treatment liquid, and the group of fourth heads is disposed to be arranged with the treatment liquid head in the direction along the second axis (Eto, fig. 7, Note that all heads are “arranged with” all other heads “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 group of first heads 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 group of first heads and the group of reaction liquid heads 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 heads as disclosed in the present application (Hanaoka, see fig. 3, Note shape of heads 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 heads of the shape disclosed by Hanaoka instead of the heads of the shape disclosed by Bannai in view of Eto because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of heads of one known shape for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights