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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: please address the punctuation at the end of line 10 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. These claims recite(s) a primary step for “estimating whether liquid remains on a nozzle surface” (claim 8), and then further specify that the estimation step includes various “determining” steps (claims 10-11, 13) and “comparing” steps (claim 12-13). These steps all fall within the “mental process” and/or mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, in that each of these steps may be performed in the human mind, perhaps with pencil and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, whether viewed in combination or as a whole, any additional claimed elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. Therefore, any additional elements beyond the recited steps fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the apparatus claims 1-7 are not subject to rejection under this heading because the apparatus claims comprise a controller configured to “change at least one of the elapsed time, the moving speed, and the pressing pressure when the liquid is estimated to remain on the nozzle surface in the estimation process.” Such a limitation integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by which a wiping process is improved; however, this limitation is missing from the method claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Kimura (US 2005/0104925 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
Kimura discloses a liquid discharge apparatus comprising:
a head (recording head 15) having a nozzle surface (nozzle face 20a) in which a nozzle (14) is opened (paragraph 32);
a wiper (wiping mechanism 15) configured to come into contact with the nozzle surface and move relative to the head (paragraph 35); and
a controller (control section 16),
wherein the controller is configured to:
obtain elapsed time from an end of a wiping process in which the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface and moves relative to the head (“unexecuted wiping time”), a moving speed at which the wiper moves relative to the head (“wiping speed”), and a pressing pressure of the wiper to the nozzle surface when the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface (“wiping force”: paragraphs 60-62);
execute an estimation process of estimating whether liquid remains on the nozzle surface after the wiping process is performed, based on the elapsed time, the moving speed, and the pressing pressure (in selecting one of wiping members 22a-c, control section 16 estimates that the wiping force of the respective wiping member 22 sufficient/insufficient to remove the adhered ink: paragraphs 59-62); and
change at least one of the elapsed time, the moving speed, and the pressing pressure when the liquid is estimated to remain on the nozzle surface in the estimation process (in selecting one of wiping members 22b-c, control section 16 changes the wiping force: paragraphs 59-62).
Regarding claims 3 and 9:
Kimura discloses all the limitations of claims 1/8, and also that the controller is further configured to execute the estimation process based on liquid information on liquid discharged by the nozzle (relationship between ink drying and unexecuted wiping time: paragraph 60), wiper information on the wiper (e.g. wiper thickness: paragraph 59), and environment information on an environment of the head (temperature and humidity: paragraph 61).
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) 4, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 2005/0104925 A1) in view of Yamagishi et al. (US 11292249 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 10:
Kimura discloses all the limitations of claims 3/9, but does not expressly disclose that the estimation process includes steps to determine an evaporation rate and viscosity of liquid adhering to the nozzle surface.
However, Kimura does also disclose that the estimation process includes consideration of evaporation rate of liquid adhering the nozzle surface (as a function of temperature and humidity: paragraph 61) and a resulting viscosity the liquid (viscosity relates to temperature and humidity: paragraph 61).
Further, Yamagishi et al. disclose a liquid discharge apparatus that determines cleaning procedures based on threshold ink viscosities (col. 7, lines 12-31) by calculating an evaporation rate of ink (S102-S104: Fig. 9) based on an elapsed time (“elapsed time”), liquid information (diffusion coefficient of water vapor Dw), and environment information (temperature T); and determines a viscosity of the liquid based on at least the determined evaporation rate (S105: Fig. 9).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to more accurately perform Kimura’s estimation process by calculating ink viscosities, as taught by Yamagishi et al., instead of assuming ink hardness according to the elapsed time.
Regarding claim 12:
Kimura’s modified estimation method comprises all the limitations of claim 10, and Kimura also discloses the comparing a force applied from the wiper to the liquid and a force due to viscous friction of the liquid based on at least the determined viscosity, the pressing pressure, and the moving speed (“… the firmer the adhering substance (residual ink) on the nozzle plate 20 dries/solidifies and accordingly the greater wiping force will be needed”: paragraphs 60-61).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura as modified by Yamagishi et al., as applied to claims 4/10 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2003/0076378 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 11:
Kimura’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claims 4/10, and Kimura also disclose that the controller is further configured to determine whether the liquid is in a solidified state (degrees of drying/solidification: paragraphs 60-61); and Yamagishi et al. also disclose determining a viscosity of the ink and comparing the viscosity to various thresholds for determining the degree of solidification of the ink (col. 7, lines 12-31)
Nakamura et al. teach that use of a wet wiper (“cloth, or the like”) configured to hold a cleaning liquid (“solvent”), instead of a wiper blade, is required in order to wipe out a liquid of higher viscosity (paragraph 8).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kimura’s apparatus to perform a wet wiping process when the liquid is determined to be in a highly solidified state, as suggested by Nakamura et al.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 2005/0104925 A1) in view of Wolf et al. (US 2002/0034696 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7:
Kimura discloses 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
Claim 2 is 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 2 appears to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious a liquid discharge apparatus comprising a controller configured to execute an estimation process that comprises “a first estimation process, a second estimation process, and a third estimation process in this order.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 2, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
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