DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant's arguments dated 03/24/2026. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending in the application. Claim(s) 17 and 18 has/have been added.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. In re Tanaka et aI., 193 USPQ 139, (CCPA) 1977.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claim(s) 1-8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230009453 to Asakawa et al. (hereinafter “Asakawa”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210213745 to Boyle et al. (hereinafter “Boyle”).
With respect to claim 1, Asakawa discloses an ink jet recording method comprising recording an image with an ink jet recording apparatus (ink jet recording apparatus 1 FIG. 2) comprising: an aqueous ink comprising an organic pigment and a resin (organic pigment, [0029]-[0034], resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349]); an ink storage portion configured to store the aqueous ink (cartridge 12); the recording head comprising an ejection orifice surface comprising formed therein an ejection orifice configured to eject the aqueous ink supplied from the ink storage portion (head 2 FIG. 2 and Head 20 FIG. 3 of Boyle); and a wiping unit configured to wipe the ejection orifice surface (FIG. 2 There is a wiper shown in the maintenance unit on the right of the image. Also [0321]), the recording being performed by applying the aqueous ink ejected from the ejection orifice to a recording medium (ink jet recording apparatus 1 FIG. 2), and a direction in which the ejection orifice surface is wiped with the wiping unit intersect each other or are opposite directions (FIG. 2 There is a wiper shown in the maintenance unit on the right of the image of Asakawa. Also [0321] The direction of wiping would intersect or be opposite of the direction of peel from Boyle.).
However, Asakawa fails to specifically disclose:
a recording head incorporated into the ink storage portion, wherein the ejection orifice surface of the recording head has bonded thereto a protective tape comprising an adhesive layer formed from an adhesive, the protective tape being peeled at a time of use thereof, and wherein a direction in which the protective tape is peeled.
Boyle discloses:
a recording head incorporated into the ink storage portion (head 20 FIG. 3), wherein the ejection orifice surface of the recording head has bonded thereto a protective tape comprising an adhesive layer formed from an adhesive (tape 12, 14 FIG.s 1-3 of Boyle), the protective tape being peeled at a time of use thereof (tape 12, 14 FIG.s 1-3 [0025] of Boyle), and wherein a direction in which the protective tape is peeled (tape 12, 14 FIG.s 1-3 [0025] of Boyle).
At the time of the invention, 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 protective tape as disclosed by Boyle with the method/apparatus of Asakawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively cover and seal the head. (Summary of Boyle).
With respect to claim 2, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein the resin comprises a water-soluble resin (resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349] )
With respect to claim 3, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein a content (% by mass) of the organic pigment in the aqueous ink is 0.5% by mass or more to 10.0% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the ink (organic pigment, [0029]-[0034], resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349] Asakawa discloses printing images with organic pigment in aqueous ink. Furthermore, the cited prior art is fully capable of printing images with multiple different kinds of ink including applicant’s claimed ink.).
With respect to claim 4, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein a content (% by mass) of the resin in the aqueous ink is 0.1% by mass or more to 20.0% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the ink (organic pigment, [0029]-[0034], resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349] Asakawa discloses printing images with resin and organic pigment in aqueous ink. Furthermore, the cited prior art is fully capable of printing images with multiple different kinds of ink including applicant’s claimed ink.).
With respect to claim 5, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein a mass ratio of a content (% by mass) of the resin in the aqueous ink to a content (% by mass) of the organic pigment therein is 0.1 times or more to 0.6 times or less (organic pigment, [0029]-[0034], resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349] Asakawa discloses printing images with resin and organic pigment in aqueous ink. Furthermore, the cited prior art is fully capable of printing images with multiple different kinds of ink including applicant’s claimed ink.).
With respect to claim 6, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein the aqueous ink further comprises at least one kind of water-soluble organic solvent selected from the group consisting of: a compound having a cyclic amide structure; an alkanediol; and an amine compound (compounds, [0085]-[0123], organic pigment, [0029]-[0034], resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349] Asakawa discloses printing images with resin and organic pigment in aqueous ink. Furthermore, the cited prior art is fully capable of printing images with multiple different kinds of ink including applicant’s claimed ink.).
With respect to claim 7, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein the aqueous ink further comprises at least two kinds of water-soluble organic solvents selected from the group consisting of: a compound having a cyclic amide structure; an alkanediol; and an amine compound (compounds, [0085]-[0123], organic pigment, [0029]-[0034], resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349] Asakawa discloses printing images with resin and organic pigment in aqueous ink. Furthermore, the cited prior art is fully capable of printing images with multiple different kinds of ink including applicant’s claimed ink.).
With respect to claim 8, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein the adhesive is a silicone-based adhesive ([0009]-, [0032] of Boyle).
With respect to claim 15, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein the recording head comprises a warming unit configured to warm the aqueous ink in the recording head, wherein the aqueous ink further comprises a surfactant, and wherein the ink jet recording method further comprises warming the aqueous ink in the recording head to a clouding point of the surfactant or more with the warming unit, followed by wiping of the ejection orifice surface with the wiping unit (8 and 4 FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 16, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses An ink jet recording apparatus (ink jet recording apparatus 1 FIG. 2) comprising: an aqueous ink comprising an organic pigment and a resin (organic pigment, [0029]-[0034], resin, [0054]-[0081], [0349]); an ink storage portion configured to store the aqueous ink(cartridge 12);, the recording head comprising an ejection orifice surface comprising formed therein an ejection orifice configured to eject the aqueous ink supplied from the ink storage portion (head 2 FIG. 2 and Head 20 FIG. 3 of Boyle); and a wiping unit configured to wipe the ejection orifice surface, and wherein a direction in which the protective tape is peeled and a direction in which the ejection orifice surface is wiped with the wiping unit intersect each other or are opposite directions (FIG. 2 There is a wiper shown in the maintenance unit on the right of the image. Also [0321] The direction of wiping would intersect or be opposite of the direction of peel from Boyle.).
However, Asakawa fails to specifically disclose:
a recording head incorporated into the ink storage portion wherein the ejection orifice surface of the recording head has bonded thereto a protective tape comprising an adhesive layer formed from an adhesive, the protective tape being peeled at a time of use thereof.
Boyle discloses:
a recording head incorporated into the ink storage portion (Head 20 FIG. 3 of Boyle) wherein the ejection orifice surface of the recording head has bonded thereto a protective tape comprising an adhesive layer formed from an adhesive, the protective tape being peeled at a time of use thereof (tape 12, 14 FIG.s 1-3 [0025] of Boyle).
At the time of the invention, 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 protective tape as disclosed by Boyle with the method/apparatus of Asakawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively cover and seal the head. (Summary of Boyle).
With respect to claim 17, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses wherein the resin comprises an acrylic resin (acrylic resin [0055] of Asakawa).
2. Claim(s) 9-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230009453 to Asakawa et al. (hereinafter “Asakawa”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210213745 to Boyle et al. (hereinafter “Boyle”) and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5969731 to Michael et al. (hereinafter “Micheal”).
With respect to claim 9, Asakawa in view of Boyle discloses the inkjet recording method.
However, Asakawa in view of Boyle fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the direction in which the protective tape is peeled and the direction in which the ejection orifice surface is wiped with the wiping unit intersect each other.
The tertiary reference Michael discloses:
wherein the direction in which the protective tape is peeled and the direction in which the ejection orifice surface is wiped with the wiping unit intersect each other (Michael discloses multiple different types of wipers and wiping in multiple directions. Wipers and wiping in multiple directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. FIG.s 7-40, Col. 13-26).
.
At the time of the invention, 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 wiping direction as disclosed by Michael with the method/apparatus of Asakawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to properly remove dried ink and other accumulated debris (Abstract of Michael).
With respect to claim 10, Asakawa in view of Boyle and Michael discloses wherein the direction in which the ejection orifice surface is wiped with the wiping unit and a direction in which a plurality of ejection orifice arrays each comprising the plurality of ejection orifices are arrayed in the ejection orifice surface are substantially parallel to each other (Col. 16, Michael discloses multiple different types of wipers and wiping in multiple directions. Wipers and wiping in multiple directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. FIG.s 7-40, Col. 13-26).
With respect to claim 11, Asakawa in view of Boyle and Michael discloses wherein the wiping unit is a blade-shaped wiper (blade, Michael discloses multiple different types of wipers and wiping in multiple directions. Wipers and wiping in multiple directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. FIG.s 7-40, Col. 13-26).
With respect to claim 12, Asakawa in view of Boyle and Michael discloses wherein a material for forming the wiper is a rubber material formed from a urethane resin (elastomeric material, Michael discloses multiple different types of wipers and wiping in multiple directions. Wipers and wiping in multiple directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. FIG.s 7-40, Col. 13-26).
With respect to claim 13, Asakawa in view of Boyle and Michael discloses wherein the wiper has a thickness of 0.4 mm or more to 1.1 mm or less (1 mm thickness, Michael discloses multiple different types of wipers and wiping in multiple directions. Wipers and wiping in multiple directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. FIG.s 7-40, Col. 13-26).
With respect to claim 14, Asakawa in view of Boyle and Michael discloses wherein a moving speed of the wiping unit when the ejection orifice surface is wiped with the wiping unit is 15 mm/s or more to 130 mm/s or less (Control speed, Michael discloses multiple different types of wipers and wiping in multiple directions. Wipers and wiping in multiple directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. FIG.s 7-40, Col. 13-26).
With respect to claim 18, Asakawa in view of Boyle and Michael discloses wherein the direction in which the protective tape is peeled and the direction in which the ejection orifice surface is wiped with the wiping unit is substantially perpendicular to each other (Michael discloses multiple different types of wipers and wiping in multiple directions. Wipers and wiping in multiple directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. FIG.s 7-40, Col. 13-26).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
1. The objections dated 12/29/2025 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
2. Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Asakawa et al. in view of Boyle et al. fails to disclose or suggest the peeling direction and the wiping direction. Applicant then says that Michael et al. also fails to remedy those issues. However, Asakawa specifically discloses a cartridge 12 with the ink including the newly added acrylic resin of claim 17 in [0055]. Additionally, Asakawa specifically discloses a wiper to recover from clogging in [0321]. In FIG. 2 there is a wiper shown in the maintenance unit on the right of the image of Asakawa. Also [0321] The direction of wiping would intersect or be opposite of the direction of peel from Boyle. Boyle specifically discloses a sealing tape on a cartridge and the direction to remove the sealing tape in FIG. 1 of Boyle. Further, Michael specifically discloses the direction of wiping the cartridge nozzles in multiple different figures and in multiple different directions including the directions claimed. FIG.s 9-40. Furthermore, wiping the nozzles in multiple different directions was well known and common practice at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee 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 Bradley W Thies whose telephone number is (571)270-5667. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 am -6:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY W THIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights