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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the newly applied combination of Nakagawa et al. (US 2019/0248142 A1) in view of Tamai et al. (US 2024/0253355 A1).
Insofar as Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 still apply to the new obviousness rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicants arguments. However, they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Tamai does not describe that the pre-processing liquid container 72 is located at a side of a first direction of a glue belt, and the pre-processing head 5 is located at the side of the first direction of the post-processing head 6” (page 10 of recent remarks). However, this argument does not consider the combination of Nakagawa et al. as modified by Tamai et al. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nakagawa et al. teach that liquid receiving units 71, 72 are disposed on both sides of the glue belt. Moreover, Tamai teaches that liquid receiving units should be partitioned so as to enable reception of various inks without enabling reactive inks to mix together. Therefore, it is clear that an obvious combination of Nakagawa et al. and Tamai et al. utilize liquid receiving units on both sides of the glue belt, each of which is partitioned to enable collection of each of the first thru third liquids.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2019/0248142 A1) in view of Tamai et al. (US 2024/0253355 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7:
Nakagawa et al. disclose a liquid ejection apparatus comprising:
a glue belt (transport belt 24) that includes a conveyance surface (medium supporting surface 24a) to which an adhesive is applied (paragraph 21), wherein the glue belt is configured to convey a cloth (paragraph 16) via the conveyance surface (Fig. 1);
a liquid ejection unit (16) including a first nozzle group configured to eject a first liquid to the cloth conveyed by the glue belt (paragraphs 32-33 & Fig. 2), a second nozzle group configured to eject a second liquid (paragraphs 32-33 & Fig. 2), and a third nozzle group configured to eject a third liquid (paragraphs 32-33 & Fig. 2);
a movement mechanism (19) configured to reciprocate the liquid ejection unit in a first direction (X1) and a second direction (X2) opposite to the first direction (paragraph 30 & Figs. 3-4);
a second liquid receiving unit (at least a “unit” of liquid receiving portions 71-72) configured to receive the second liquid discharged as a first waste liquid from the liquid ejection unit reciprocated by the movement mechanism (paragraphs 56-58 & Figs. 3-4);
a third liquid receiving unit (at least a “unit” of liquid receiving portion 71) configured to receive the third liquid discharged as a second waste liquid from the liquid ejection unit reciprocated by the movement mechanism (paragraphs 56-58 & Figs. 3-4),
wherein the third liquid receiving unit being located at a side of the first direction of the glue belt (Fig. 3);
a cleaning unit (33) configured to clean at least a part of the glue belt (paragraph 25 & Fig. 1),
wherein the third liquid receiving unit is located at a side of the first direction of the glue belt (Figs. 3-4),
wherein the nozzle groups are configured to eject the respective liquids to the glue belt as waste liquid (to flushing area FA: paragraphs 56-58 & Figs. 3-4).
Nakagawa et al. do not expressly disclose the particular liquid ejection unit configuration by which the first thru third nozzle groups eject the first thru third liquids.
However, Nakagawa et al. do also disclose ejecting different types of liquids (paragraph 33).
Further, Tamai et al. disclose a liquid ejection apparatus that is able to enhance aggregation, fixability, and fastness of a printed image (paragraph 56-57) while also suppressing reaction of liquids with each other (paragraph 153) by comprising:
a liquid ejection unit including a first nozzle group (of heads 4) configured to eject a first liquid (paragraphs 55-57), a second nozzle group (of post-processing liquid heads 6) configured to eject a second liquid (paragraph 55-57), and a third nozzle group (of pre-processing liquid head 5) configured to eject a third liquid (paragraphs 55-57); and
a receiving unit (container unit 70N: Fig. 20) that comprises a softening agent receiving unit (post-processing liquid container 79) configured to receive the second liquid discharged as a waste liquid from the liquid ejection unit (paragraphs 57, 150 & Fig. 20), and an aggregating agent receiving unit (pre-processing liquid container 72) configured to receive the third liquid (paragraph 150 & Fig. 20),
wherein the third nozzle group is located at the side of a first direction (“left”) of the second nozzle group (Fig. 3),
wherein the first liquid is different from the second liquid (paragraphs 55-57 & Fig. 3),
wherein the second liquid is a liquid containing a softening agent (“silicon-based processing liquid”: paragraphs 55-57 & Fig. 3),
wherein the third liquid is a liquid containing an aggregating agent including a component of aggregating the first liquid (paragraphs 55-57 & Fig. 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakagawa et al.’s apparatus to include the liquid ejection unit configuration taught by Tamai et al., and to therefore also modify the liquid receiving units to utilize partitions.
Regarding claim 3:
Nakagawa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Tamai et al. also disclose that the third nozzle group (5) is configured to eject the third liquid to the aggregating agent receiving unit as second waste liquid (paragraph 150).
Regarding claim 4:
Nakagawa et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Tamai et al. also disclose that the second nozzle group (6) is disposed downstream of the first nozzle group (4) and the third nozzle group (5) in a conveyance direction (F) of the cloth conveyed by the glue belt (Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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 5 appears to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious a liquid ejection apparatus in which “the softening agent receiving unit is disposed between the glue belt and the aggregating agent receiving unit in the first direction.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 5, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Claim 6 appears to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious a liquid ejection apparatus in which “when the glue belt stops conveying the cloth, the first nozzle group is configured to eject the first liquid to the first maintenance area receiving unit as a fourth waste liquid, the second nozzle group is configured to eject the second liquid to the first maintenance area receiving unit as a fifth waste liquid, and the third nozzle group is configured to eject the third liquid to the second maintenance receiving unit as a sixth waste liquid.” It is this combination of limitations, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 6, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
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 USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights