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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
3. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 05/29/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed on 02/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. On page 5 of the remarks, Applicant acknowledged that Yoshikawa teaches reducing a discharge quantity per pass in proportion to a larger number of printing passes. However; Applicant argued that this is tied to a single printing head and not to an embodiment illustrated in Fig. 10 having two printing heads. The Examiner finds this argument to be not persuasive.
In the instant application, the two printing heads are provided on a single carriage, therefore the number of passes of the first printing head is also equal to the number of passes of the second printing head; therefore, reducing the ejection amount of the second printing head in proportion to the number of scanning passes of ejection of the first printing head is analogous to reducing the ejection amount of the second printing head in proportion to the number of scanning passes of ejection of the second printing head.
Since Yoshikawa disclosed the reduction of the ejection amount of a printing head in proportion to the number of scanning passes of said printing head, this limitation has been found to be disclosed by Yoshikawa.
6. Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim language to distinctively claim the subject matter that Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niekawa (JP 2005-144749), in view of Yoshikawa (US Pub. Nº 2022/0016910).
10. Regarding independent claim 1: Niekawa disclosed a printing apparatus ([0071], line 3; also see Fig. 6, reference 20) comprising:
a transport unit configured to transport a medium in a first direction ([0048], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 6, reference 11 conveys medium 5 in first direction Y);
a carriage configured to move in a second direction intersecting the first direction ([0041], lines 4-5; also see Fig. 6, reference 3 reciprocates in second direction X);
a first printing unit held by the carriage ([0042], lines 3-4; also see Fig. 4, reference 6); and
a second printing unit held by the carriage, the second printing unit being arranged at at least one of a position further upstream and a position further downstream than a position of the first printing unit ([0042], lines 4-8; also see Fig. 4, references 7 and 8), wherein
a length of the second printing unit in the first direction is shorter than a length of the first printing unit in the first direction ([0011], lines 5-7; also see Fig. 4, the lengths of printing units 7 and 8 are shorter than that of printing unit 6 in the Y direction), and
the second printing unit is caused to be available in a multi-pass mode ([0063], lines 1-9; second printing unit 7 and/or 8 is caused to be available in overlapped printing mode which requires multiple passes of the carriage 3).
Niekawa is silent about the second printing unit reduces an ejection amount for one ejection pass of the second printing unit as a number of scanning passes of election of the first printing unit increases, the election amount being in proportion to the number of scanning passes of election of the first printing unit.
Yoshikawa disclosed in a printing apparatus (Fig. 1, reference 1), a printing unit (Fig. 1, reference 24) configured to reduce an ejection amount for one ejection pass of the printing unit as a number of scanning passes of ejection of the printing unit increases, the election amount being in proportion to the number of scanning passes of ejection of said printing unit ([0090], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yoshikawa with those of Niekawa by reducing an ejection amount for each pass as the number of scanning passes increases in order to suppress gloss irregularity as disclosed by Yoshikawa in paragraph [0091].
11. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niekawa (JP 2005-144749), in view of Yoshikawa (US Pub. Nº 2022/0016910) as applied to independent claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubo et al. (JP 2020-156460).
12. Regarding claim 2: The combination of Niekawa and Yoshikawa disclosed the printing apparatus according to claim 1.
The combination of Niekawa and Yoshikawa is silent about wherein the second printing unit includes a solenoid valve type of an ejecting head including a plurality of solenoid valves.
Kubo et al. disclosed a printing apparatus ([0005], line 1) comprising a solenoid valve type of an ejecting head ([0063], lines 1-6 and [0271], line 12; also see Fig. 1, reference 12) including a plurality of solenoid valves ([0024], lines 1-5; the plurality of solenoid valves corresponding to each nozzle 111a (not shown)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kubo et al. with those of the combination of Niekawa and Yoshikawa by using a solenoid valve type of an ejecting head as the second printing unit in order to reduce production cost by using commercially available ejecting heads as disclosed by Kubo et al. in paragraph [0063].
13. Regarding claim 3: The combination of Niekawa, Yoshikawa and Kubo et al. disclosed the printing apparatus according to claim 2.
In the embodiment of Fig. 4, Niekawa is silent about wherein the ejecting head is arranged in an inclined manner with respect to the second direction.
In the embodiment of Fig. 6, Niekawa disclosed wherein the ejecting head is arranged in an inclined manner with respect to the second direction ([0015], line 1; also see Fig. 6, references 21 and 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Niekawa, Yoshikawa and Kubo et al. with those of the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Niekawa by arranged the ejecting head of the second printing unit in an inclined manner with respect to the second direction in order to reduce the length of the second printing unit in the sub-scanning direction and to reduce the number of scans as disclosed by Niekawa in [0015].
14. Regarding claim 4: The combination of Niekawa, Yoshikawa and Kubo et al. disclosed the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of the second printing units are arranged in the second direction (Niekawa Fig. 4, at least two second printing units 7 and/or two second printing units 8 are arranged in the X direction).
15. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niekawa (JP 2005-144749), in view of Yoshikawa (US Pub. Nº 2022/0016910).
16. Regarding independent claim 6: Niekawa disclosed a printing method ([0049], lines 3-4) by using a printing apparatus ([0071], line 3; also see Fig. 6, reference 20), the printing apparatus including
a control unit ([0050], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 2, reference 13),
a transport unit configured to transport a medium in a first direction ([0048], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 6, reference 11 conveys medium 5 in first direction Y),
a carriage configured to move in a second direction intersecting the first direction ([0041], lines 4-5; also see Fig. 6, reference 3 reciprocates in second direction X),
a first printing unit held by the carriage ([0042], lines 3-4; also see Fig. 4, reference 6), and
a second printing unit held by the carriage, the second printing unit being arranged at at least one of a position further upstream and a position further downstream than a position of the first printing unit ([0042], lines 4-8; also see Fig. 4, references 7 and 8), wherein
a length of the second printing unit in the first direction is shorter than a length of the first printing unit in the first direction ([0011], lines 5-7; also see Fig. 4, the lengths of printing units 7 and 8 are shorter than that of printing unit 6 in the Y direction), and
the control unit causes the second printing unit to be available when a printing mode of the printing apparatus is a multi-pass mode ([0063], lines 1-9; second printing unit 7 and/or 8 is caused to be available in overlapped printing mode which requires multiple passes of the carriage 3).
Niekawa is silent about the control unit reduces an ejection amount for one ejection pass of the second printing unit as a number of scanning passes of election of the first printing unit increases, the election amount being in proportion to the number of scanning passes of election of the first printing unit.
Yoshikawa disclosed in a printing apparatus (Fig. 1, reference 1), a printing unit (Fig. 1, reference 24) configured to reduce an ejection amount for one ejection pass of the printing unit as a number of scanning passes of ejection of the printing unit increases, the election amount being in proportion to the number of scanning passes of ejection of said printing unit ([0090], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yoshikawa with those of Niekawa by reducing an ejection amount for each pass as the number of scanning passes increases in order to suppress gloss irregularity as disclosed by Yoshikawa in paragraph [0091].
Conclusion
17. 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).
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853