DETAILED ACTION
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 15 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 a wiping occurs, but the wiper is not in contact with the first surface. This does not seem possible. Clarification is required.
Because claim 16 depends from claim 15, it is also rejected on this basis.
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) 1, 2, 10, 11, 14, 18, 20 and 27-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrante et al. (2022/0358761) in view of Uchikata (6,530,642).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Ferrante teaches an observing apparatus and method comprising:
a first member (fig. 2, item 210A) having a first surface (fig. 2, top surface);
a wiper (fig. 2, note unlabeled wiper) configured to move relative to the first member (see fig. 2) and wipe up a liquid adhered to the first surface ([0021], note that a handheld wiper is configured to move in all directions over a wiping surface, and note that at least some portion of what is to be wiped is liquid); and
a camera (fig. 2, item 105A) configured to pick up an image of a process of wiping up the liquid adhered to the first surface with the wiper from a beginning of the wiping up of the liquid to an end of the wiping up of the liquid ([0021]) (Note that, for purposes of all rejections, the claimed observing apparatus is being defined as the general controller for each of the prior art citations).
Ferrante does not teach wherein a pressing pressure by the wiper is changeable from a first pressing pressure to a second pressing pressure different from the first pressing pressure, each of the first pressing pressure and the second pressing pressure being a pressing pressure that is exerted on the first member by the wiper. Uchikata teaches this (Uchikata, see figs. 20, 21, 27, Note that verification is performed for a number of inks at a number of contact widths, which are proportional to pressing pressures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the wiping cleaning wizard disclosed by Ferrante to the inkjet printing device disclosed by Uchikata because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. While Ferrante is directed to a wiping for sanitizing medical surfaces and a routine for determining the effectiveness of such wiping, Examiner maintains that such a technique would have been applicable to any number of regularly-wiped surfaces, including nozzle surfaces of printers.
Upon combination, the carriage and nozzle surface would constitute a stand and first member, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 1 rejection. With respect to the limitations directed to a head having a first nozzle and a nozzle configured to eject liquid, note that this is disclosed by Uchikata (Uchikata, see fig. 7, Note head CR with first surface with nozzles 110).
Regarding claims 28-30, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the apparatuses and method according to claims 1, 20 and 27, further comprising a controller configured to: determine whether changing of the pressure from the first pressing pressure to the second pressing pressure is completed, and start picking up of an image by the camera again based on determining of completion of the pressing pressure (Uchikata, see figs. 20, 21, 27, Note that the process of wiping at different pressures and amounts of adhered liquid is repeated. Applying the technique disclosed by Ferrante would have the resultant device having a camera that picks up wiping the repeated wiping processes at different pressures to determine which is the most effective).
Regarding claim 2, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the wiper is configured to move relative to the first member in a first direction (Ferrante, fig. 2, left-right on page); and
the camera is configured to pick up the image of the process of wiping up the liquid with the wiper in a second direction intersecting the first direction and intersecting a facing direction, the wiper and the first member facing to each other in the facing direction (Ferrante, see fig. 2A, Note that camera is located at a position horizontally different from the wiping member/first member and is not along the first direction).
Regarding claim 3, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the wiper is fixed; and the first member is configured to move in the first direction (Uchikata, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising an electric cylinder including:
a stand (Uchikata, fig. 2, carriage 50) configured to carry the first member placed on the stand (Uchikata, see fig. 1); and a motor (Uchikata, col. 12, lines 20-25, motor that drives belt and, in turn, carriage) configured to move the stand, wherein the first member is configured to move in the first direction by the motor (Uchikata, col. 12, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 5, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the observing apparatus is configured to change a pressing pressure exerted on the first member by the wiper (Uchikata, see figs. 20, 21, 27, Note that contact width is directly proportional to the contact pressing pressure).
Regarding claim 6, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the wiper is supported by a support member (Uchikata, fig. 19, item 501) in a manner that a support angle of the wiper is changeable (Uchikata, see fig. 21, Note that the “support angle” is being defined as a bending angle of the wiper, and the wiper bends more when wiping than when not. Note that “support angle” has not been defined in any way).
Regarding claim 10, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising: a controller; and a display, wherein the controller is configured to execute: a first determining process of determining whether or not the liquid follows the wiper based on the image picked up by the camera; and an urging indication process of causing the display to display a message, in accordance with a determination that the liquid does not follow the wiper (Ferrante, [0044], Note that the operator is notified if the wiping is insufficient, i.e., the threshold amount of liquid following the wiper has not been attained).
Regarding claim 11, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein: the wiper is supported by a support member (Ferrante, fig. 2A, item 215A) in a manner that a support angle of the wiper is changeable (see fig. 2); and the controller is configured to execute the urging indication process, in accordance with the determination that the liquid does not follow the wiper (Ferrante, [0044], Note that the operator is notified if the wiping is insufficient, i.e., the threshold amount of liquid following the wiper has not been attained).
Regarding claim 14, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a controller (fig. 3, item 150); and a display (Ferrante, fig. 3, item 345), wherein the controller is configured to execute: a first determining process of determining whether or not the liquid follows the wiper based on the image picked up by the camera (Ferrante, [0044], note that faulty wiping is picked up by the camera); and an adaptation indication process of causing the display to display a message, in accordance with a determination that the liquid follows the wiper (Ferrante, [0044]).
Regarding claim 18, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising a controller, wherein: the controller is configured to execute a first determining process of determining whether or not the liquid follows the wiper based on the image picked up by the camera (Ferrante, [0044]); and the controller is configured to execute, before the execution of the first determining process: a pattern matching process between the image picked up by the camera and a reference image (Ferrante, [0029]); and a switching process of switching the reference image to be used in the pattern matching process depending on a viscosity of the liquid (Ferrante, [0029], Note that the image picked up necessarily varies depending on the viscosity of the liquid being wiped, and thus, because the reference image corresponds to the viscosity, the reference image as changed according to viscosity).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrante in view of Uchikata as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (2007/0159508).
Regarding claim 7, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 5. Ferrante in view of Uchikata does not teach wherein the wiper is fixed at a predetermined position by a spring. Yamamoto teaches this (Yamamoto, fig. 4, item 42, Note that plate spring 42 “fixes the wiper at a predetermined position”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a spring and a water-repellent film of the type disclosed by Yamamoto to the device of Ferrante in view of Uchikata because doing so would help keep the nozzle surface clean while also allowing for the wiper to be elastic, thereby helping to minimize damage from the wiper to the nozzle surface.
Regarding claim 7, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 5. Ferrante in view of Uchikata does not teach wherein: the first surface has a water-repellent film. Yamamoto teaches this (Yamamoto, [0046]); and the observing apparatus is configured to change a distance between the water-repellent film and the wiper (Yamamoto, see fig. 1, Note that the first surface moves toward and away from the wiper). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a spring and a water-repellent film of the type disclosed by Yamamoto to the device of Ferrante in view of Uchikata because doing so would help keep the nozzle surface clean while also allowing for the wiper to be elastic, thereby helping to minimize damage from the wiper to the nozzle surface.
Regarding claim 12, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to execute the urging indication process, in accordance with the determination that the liquid does not follow the wiper (Ferrante, [0044]). Ferrante does not teach the wiper is fixed at a predetermined position by a spring. Yamamoto teaches this (Yamamoto, see fig. 4, Note wiper 36 fixed at a predetermined position by spring 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the wiping cleaning wizard disclosed by Ferrante in view of Uchikata to the inkjet printing device disclosed by Yamamoto because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. While Ferrante is directed to a wiping for sanitizing medical surfaces and a routine for determining the effectiveness of such wiping, Examiner maintains that such a technique would have been applicable to any number of regularly-wiped surfaces, including nozzle surfaces of printers.
Regarding claim 13, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein: the controller is configured to execute the urging indication process, in accordance with the determination that the liquid does not follow the wiper (Ferrante, [0044]). Ferrante in view of Uchikata does not teach a water-repellent film and a spring. Yamamoto teaches wherein the first surface has a water-repellent film (Yamamoto, [0046]); the observing apparatus is configured to change a distance between the water-repellent film and the wiper (Yamamoto, see fig. 1, Note carriage moves toward and away from wiper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the wiping cleaning wizard disclosed by Ferrante in view of Uchikata to the inkjet printing device disclosed by Yamamoto because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Ferrante in view of Uchikata teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first surface and the wiper are in a non-contact state throughout the wiping process of wiping from the beginning of the wiping up of the liquid to the end of the wiping up of the liquid (see fig. 2, Note that the video camera captures contact and non-contact states). Ferrante in view of Uchikata does not teach a water-repellent film is applied on the first surface. Yamamoto teaches this (Yamamoto, [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the wiping cleaning wizard disclosed by Ferrante to the inkjet printing device disclosed by Yamamoto because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Ferrante in view of Uchikata and Yamamoto teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 15, wherein a distance between the water-repellent film and the wiper is not less than 0.1 mm and not more than 1.0 mm (Yamamoto, see fig. 1, Note that, at a given time, the wiper is within the claimed range).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrante in view of Takahashi et al. (10,442,191).
Regarding claim 17, Ferrante teaches the observing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising: a controller; and a display; a first determining process of determining whether or not the liquid follows the wiper based on the image picked up by the camera, and an urging indication process of causing the display to display a message ([0036]).
Ferrante does not teach wherein the controller is configured to execute a high viscosity state process depending on a viscosity of the liquid; and the controller is configured to execute, in the high viscosity state process, and the controller is configured to execute, in accordance with a determination that the liquid does not follow the wiper: a first velocity decreasing process of decreasing a relative velocity of the wiper with respect to the first member. Takahashi teaches this (Takahasi, col. 12, lines 32-44, Note that wiping speed is decreased for high viscosity ink relative to the wiping speed for lower-viscosity ink). 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 viscosity determination and wiper speed adjusting technique disclosed by Takahashi in the device disclose by Ferrante because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device in need of improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 20 and 27 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 571-202-5960. 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
Prosecution Insights