DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/30/2025. Applicant traverses on the basis that there would be no undue burden to Examiner in search all embodiments. Examiner maintains that the embodiments all have patentably distinct requirements that would result in non-overlapping search, which in turn would result in a serious search burden.
Further, because claim 11 depends from claim 9, it is also withdrawn from examination.
The Requirement is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the latest first control” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 6 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites wherein first discharge control is executed when the first discharge control is executed a predetermined number of times. It would seem that if the first discharge control is already being executed, it cannot be executed in addition to already being executed. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim seems to recite wherein the printing material is both of a liquid including a pigment and a separate processing liquid, but claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, would seem to recite only a single liquid being ejected from a single printing element board. Clarification is required.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodera et al. (2019/0224984).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Kodera teaches a printing apparatus and control method comprising:
printing element board (fig. 3, item 204) comprising a nozzle (fig. 3, item 234) configured to eject printing material (see fig. 2);
a circulation path (figs. 2, 3, item 236) comprising the printing element board and configured to circulate printing material (see figs. 2, 3), supply the printing element board with printing material (see figs. 2, 3), and collect printing material not ejected from the printing element board (see figs. 2, 3);
an acquisition unit (figs. 4, 5, item 34) configured to acquire information on concentration of printing material circulating through the circulation path (see fig. 4); and
a discharge control unit (fig. 5, item 100) configured to execute discharge control of printing material in which printing material is discharged from the circulation path according to the information on concentration and the circulation path is supplied with an amount of printing material corresponding to a discharge amount (see fig. 6, note that the acquired concentration is used at S602 to continue circulation at S614 if the concentration falls within an acceptable range or continue circulating with correction liquid added to the circulation path at S606 if the concentration falls outside of the acceptable range),
wherein in a case where the discharge control is executed, the discharge control unit selectively executes one of first discharge control in which a discharge amount of printing material is a first discharge amount and second discharge control in which the discharge amount is a second discharge amount greater than the first discharge amount (see fig. 6, Note that the claimed “discharge amounts” have not been defined in any way. As such, the “first discharge control” is being defined as a discharge where less ink is circulated than the “second discharge control.” Note also that the claim does not specify whether discharging liquid from the circulation path occurs through the nozzles or to some other area).
Regarding claim 12, Kodera in view of Tateishi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the discharge control unit discharges printing material from the circulation path by preliminary ejection of ejecting printing material not contributing to printing from the nozzle of the printing element board or suction discharge of forcibly sucking and discharging printing material from the nozzle (see fig. 2, Note idle ejection of ink from nozzles during circulation).
Regarding claim 13, Kodera teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing material includes an ink containing a pigment and a processing liquid for applying predetermined processing to the ink ejected to a print medium ([0055]).
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) 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera in view of Tateishi et al. (2020/0077934).
Regarding claim 2, Kodera teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information on concentration comprises: an estimated concentration value which is an estimated value of concentration of the printing material (see fig. 4). Kodera does not teach determining an estimation error which is an error that may occur in the estimated concentration value. Tateishi teaches analyzing a fluid to estimate its concentration and determining an estimation error of that initial estimation (Tateishi, [0157]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the error-including concentration determination technique disclosed by Tateishi in the device disclosed by Kodera because doing so would amount to substituting a known estimation technique for the concentration determining sensor disclosed by Kodera, thereby allowing for a reduction in parts required to determine the concentration.
Regarding claim 4, Kodera in view of Tateishi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the discharge control unit executes first control in which the first discharge control is executed in a case where a sum of the estimated concentration value and the estimation error is equal to or greater than a limit value of printing material concentration which causes at least one of occurrence of density unevenness in a printed image, decrease in ejection characteristic of printing material from the nozzle, and decrease in reliability of a printing material circulating function in the circulation path (Kodera, see fig. 6, Tateishi, [0157], Note that the resultant device would necessarily function in this manner. That is, assuming Kodera’s disclosed techniques are intended to increase print reliability and quality by ensuring concentrations are within desired ranges, Kodera’s controller necessarily accesses threshold concentrations above which printing is diminished, and adding an error factor of the type disclosed by Tateishi would result in the addition of such an error value to the detected concentration values of Kodera).
Regarding claim 7, Kodera in view of Tateishi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the discharge control unit executes the first discharge control in a case where a number of times that the first discharge control is consecutively executed is less than a predetermined number of times, and the discharge control unit executes the second discharge control in a case where the number of times that the first discharge control is consecutively executed reaches the predetermined number of times (Kodera, see fig. 6, Tateishi, [0157], Note that the resultant device would necessarily function in this manner. That is, assuming Kodera’s disclosed techniques are intended to increase print reliability and quality by ensuring concentrations are within desired ranges, Kodera’s controller necessarily accesses threshold concentrations above which printing is diminished, and adding an error factor of the type disclosed by Tateishi would result in the addition of such an error value to the detected concentration values of Kodera).
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 571-272-5960. 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