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
The rejections of claims 8-13 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn according to the recent claim amendments.
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 obviousness rejection based on the disclosures provided by Hamamoto and Kawanabe et al.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: please change the recitation of “evaporation rate;,” to “evaporation rate;. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: please change the recitation of “estimation process ;,” to “estimation process;. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Similarly, Applicant is advised that should claims 4-5 be found allowable, claims 16-17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Similarly, Applicant is advised that should claims 6-7 be found allowable, claims 18-19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 8-9, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto (US 2021/0252865 A1) in view of Kawanabe et al. (US 2001/0015818 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
Hamamoto discloses a liquid discharge apparatus comprising:
a head (15) having a nozzle surface (25) in which a nozzle (24) is opened (Fig. 1);
a wiper (100) configured to come into contact with the nozzle surface and move relative to the head (paragraphs 64-65 & Fig. 4A); and
a controller (control unit 111), wherein the controller is configured to:
obtain a moving speed (Sp) at which the wiper moves relative to the head (paragraphs 113, 118), and a pressing pressure (via the contact extent G) of the wiper to the nozzle surface when the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface (paragraphs 75-77, 118);
as part of a maintenance process, execute an estimation process (S207 / S307 / S405) of estimating whether liquid remains on the nozzle surface after the wiping process is performed, based on the moving speed and the pressing pressure (paragraph 122); and
change at least one of the elapsed time and the moving speed when the liquid is estimated to remain on the nozzle surface in the estimation process (S408: paragraph 140 & Fig. 11).
Hamamoto does not expressly obtain an elapsed time from an end of a wiping process, and thus does not expressly execute the estimation process based on, inter alia, the elapsed time.
However, Kawanabe et al. disclose a liquid discharge apparatus that saves ink (paragraph 446) by obtaining an elapsed time (“elapsed time”) from an end of a wiping process in which the wiper comes into contact with a nozzle surface and moves relative to a head (paragraph 175), and executing the next maintenance process based on the elapsed time (paragraphs 12, 218).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamamoto’s controller to also obtain an elapsed time from an end of a wiping process and to execute the next maintenance process, based on the elapsed time, as taught by Kawanabe et al. Because Hamamoto’s estimation process is performed with the maintenance processes, the estimation process is naturally performed based on the elapsed time.
Regarding claims 3 and 15:
Hamamoto’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Hamamoto also disclose that the controller is further configured to execute the estimation process based on liquid information on liquid discharged by the nozzle (via values of intertance m: paragraphs 87-90), wiper information on the wiper (the condition after wiping: Fig. 9), and environment information on the environment of the head (via viscosity of the liquid: paragraphs 87-90).
Regarding claim 9:
Hamamoto’s modified method comprises all the limitations of claim 8, and also that the estimating comprises estimating whether the liquid remains on the nozzle surface after the wiping process is performed (e.g. S207: Fig. 9), based on liquid information on the liquid discharged by the head (via values of intertance m: paragraphs 87-90), wiper information on the wiper (the condition after wiping: Fig. 9), and environment information on an environment of the head (via viscosity of the liquid: paragraphs 87-90).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto as modified by Kawanabe et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wolf et al. (US 2002/0034696 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 18-19:
Hamamoto’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the particular ink composition.
However, Wolf et al. disclose a liquid discharge apparatus that is able to produce color filters for liquid-crystal displays (abstract) by using a water-based ink (paragraph 179) comprising a pigment (paragraph 172), a resin particle (paragraph 177), and a water-soluble organic solvent (paragraph 175).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an ink composition such as that taught by Wolf et al. in Kimura’s apparatus, so as to enable production of color filters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 10-13 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.
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 appear to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose a liquid discharge apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute an estimation process comprising the steps to “determine an evaporation rate of liquid adhering to the nozzle surface based on at least the elapsed time, the liquid information, and the environment information; determine viscosity of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface based on at least the determined evaporation rate; and estimate whether the liquid remains based on at least the determined viscosity, the pressing pressure, and the moving speed.” It is this combination of limitations, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 4, that indicate allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Similarly, claims 10-13 appear to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose an estimation method for estimating an outcome of a wiping process comprising a step of estimating whether the liquid remains on a nozzle surface including the steps of “determining an evaporation rate of liquid adhering to the nozzle surface based on at least the elapsed time, the liquid information, and the environment information; determining viscosity of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface based on at least the determined evaporation rate; and estimating whether the liquid remains based on at least the determined viscosity, the pressing pressure, and the moving speed.” It is this combination of limitations, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 10, that indicate allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
Claim 14 is allowed.
Claim 14 is allowable because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose a liquid discharge apparatus comprising a controller configured to “change a moving speed to a minimum speed and execute the second estimation process for another time when the liquid is estimated to remain on the nozzle surface in the first estimation process, change the pressing pressure to a maximum pressing pressure and execute the third estimation process when the liquid is estimated to remain on the nozzle surface in the second estimation process; and change the elapsed time when the liquid is estimated to remain on the nozzle surface in the third estimation process.” It is this combination of limitations, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 14, that indicate 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