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
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the amended claim 1 involving the “second wiping contact be over the nozzle surface” is not disclosed by the reference Arai et al. (US 2002175970 A1) and is therefore patentable. The applicants’ argument is noted. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the reference Arai et al. (US 2002175970 A1) is used for the limitation concept of the second wiping contact pressure being higher than the first wiping contact, not the specific limitation of a second wiping contact be over the nozzle surface. The primary refence Matsuoka (US 20210146689) was cited to acknowledge the previous limitation of claim 1 regarding the “performing a second wipe after the first wipe,” and still discloses “performing a second wipe over the nozzle surface after the first wipe”.
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, 3-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 20210146689 A1) in view of Kurata et al. (US 5552811), Arai et al. (US 20020175970 A1), and Steinfield et al. (US 20080266342 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuoka teaches a method for maintenance of at least one print head of an inkjet printer (Paragraph [0007] describes a maintenance method of a “plurality of nozzles” of a “liquid ejecting apparatus”), the at least one print head comprising an inlet to an ink chamber leading to a plurality of ink nozzles positioned in a nozzle surface and suitable for jetting ink (Figure 4, displays a “liquid ejection portion 12” that ejects the liquid, that is supplied by a “common liquid chamber 17”, through a “plurality of nozzles 19” arranged along the “nozzle surface 18” described in paragraph [0034]), the inkjet printer comprising at least one air pressure supply unit (Figure 4 displays a “pressure adjusting device 47” that includes a “pressing mechanism 48” that effects the “air chamber 72” described paragraphs [0043] and [0055]. Furthermore, Figure 4 also displays a “pressurizing mechanism 31”), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
a) purging the plurality of ink nozzles at least once by providing a positive pressure on the ink chamber by means of the at least one air pressure supply unit (Figure 7 displays a “discharge operation” where the “pressure adjusting device 47” and “pressurizing mechanism 31” described in paragraph [0062]. Figure 6 also displays a diaphragm of the method of maintenance where the first operation is to “perform discharge operation S102”.);
b) after purging the plurality of ink nozzles, performing a first wipe over the nozzle surface with a first contact pressure of close to 0 kPa in a manner that the first wipe barely touches the nozzle surface (Figure 6 displays a “wiping operation S106-S108” that occurs after the “discharge operation” described in paragraph [0073]. Furthermore, paragraph [0075] describes how the “wiping member 148” comes into contact with the “nozzle 19”. Paragraph [0029] describes how there was a first and second wipe operation where the distance between the “nozzle surface 18” and the “band-like wiping member 148” in the second wiping operation is adjusted and different from the first wiping operation.) and the first contact pressure is sufficiently large for a removal of ink residue in the plurality of ink nozzles (Paragraph [0028] describes how the liquid adhering to the “nozzle surface 18” is removed by the “wiper member 148”.),
c) performing a second wipe over the nozzle surface after the first wipe (Paragraph [0029] describes how there is a “first wiper driving portion 146” and “second wiper driving portion 147” that causes the “nozzle surface 18” to be wiped a first and second time by the “wiping portion 149” wound around the “pressing portion 144”.)
Matsuoka fails to teach wherein the first wipe is performed with a wet tissue comprising a wetting liquid and with a vacuum pressure provided by the at least one air pressure supply unit, wherein the wet tissue is part of a wiper for cleaning the ink nozzles positioned in the nozzle surface.
However, Kurata teaches wherein the first wipe is performed with a wet tissue comprising a wetting liquid and with a vacuum pressure provided by the at least one air pressure supply unit and wherein the wet tissue is part of a wiper for cleaning the ink nozzles positioned in the nozzle surface (Figure 1 displays the “cleaning means 50” for the “head 2” using a “cleaning member 70” that contains a “rinsing liquid 81” and the “sucking means 82” comprising a “pump” described in column 6, lines 42-59 and column 7, lines 9-22. Furthermore, Figure 7 displays a zoomed in image of the “cleaning means 50” where a “cleaning member 80” that is a flexible is made of a resilient material that is cable of absorbing the rinsing liquid and residue ink of the “port surface 22” of the “printing head 2” as described in column 9, lines 62-66 and column 10, lines 1-8.)
Matsuoka and Kurata are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a method of maintenance for a print head of a printer. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance method taught by Matsuoka to also apply wherein the first wipe is performed with a wet tissue comprising a wetting liquid and with a vacuum pressure provided by the at least one air pressure supply unit taught by Kurata. This would have been done for the purpose of obtaining a higher cleaning effect (Kurata, column 3, line 17.).
Matsuoka fails to teach wherein the second wipe is performed with the wet tissue comprising the wetting liquid, and with the vacuum pressure provided by the at least one air pressure supply unit.
However, Kurata teaches wherein the second wipe is performed with the wet tissue comprising the wetting liquid, and with the vacuum pressure provided by the at least one air pressure supply unit (Figures 1 displays the “cleaning means 50” for the “head 2” using a “cleaning member 70” that contains a “rinsing liquid 81” and the “sucking means 82” comprising a “pump” described in column 6, lines 42-59 and column 7, lines 9-22. Furthermore, Figure 7 displays a zoomed in image of the “cleaning means 50” where a “cleaning member 80” that is a flexible is made of a resilient material that is cable of absorbing the rinsing liquid and residue ink described in column 9, lines 62-66 and column 10, lines 1-8.).
Matsuoka and Kurata are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a method of maintenance for a print head of a printer. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance method taught by Matsuoka to also apply wherein the first wipe is performed with a wet tissue comprising a wetting liquid and with a vacuum pressure provided by the at least one air pressure supply unit taught by Kurata. This would have been done for the purpose of obtaining a higher cleaning effect (Kurata, column 3, line 17.).
Modified Matsuoka fails to teach a second contact pressure being higher than the first contact pressure.
However, Arai teaches a second contact pressure being higher than the first contact pressure (Paragraph [0056] discloses how the “wiper mechanism 50” has two wiping positions for the “wiper 52” where the “head cleaning position (first wiping position)” allows the “wiper 52” to wipe the “nozzle surface 15” and the “wiper cleaning position (second wiping position)” also wipes the “nozzle surface 15” but is farther toward the “print head 12”. This progress is displayed in Figures 9-11 which suggests that the contact pressure of the second wiping contact is higher than the first wiping contact and therefore teaches the claimed limitation.).
Modified Matsuoka and Arai are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving cleaning methods for a print head. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance method taught by Matsuoka to also apply the second contact pressure being higher than the first contact pressure taught by Arai. This would have been done for the purpose of having a maintenance device capable of wiping the nozzle surface of a print head with a wiper and having reduced the foreign matter adhered to the nozzle surface (Arai, paragraph [0010]).
Modified Matsuoka fails to teach a second contact pressure being in a range from 40 to 100 kPa.
However, Steinfield teaches a second contact pressure being in a range from 40 to 100 kPa (Figure 15 displays the “printhead 40” being wiped by “material 70” when pressed by the “compressed roller 262”, where the “peak pressure applied” to the “print head 40” is “between about 0.02 Mpa and 20 Mpa (mega-Pascal) as described in paragraph [0053].)
Modified Matsuoka and Steinfield are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving cleaning methods for a print head. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance method taught by Matsuoka to also apply the second contact pressure being in a range from 40 to 100 kPa taught by Steinfield. This would have been done for the purpose of enhancing the wiping of the print head (Steinfield, paragraph [0053]).
Matsuoka fails to teach a push of the wetting liquid into the plurality of nozzles.
However, Kurata teaches a push of the wetting liquid into the plurality of nozzles (Figures 1 displays the “cleaning means 50” for the “head 2” using a “cleaning member 70” that contains a “rinsing liquid 81” and makes contact with the “discharging surface 22” described in column 3, lines 17-25.).
Matsuoka and Kurata are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a method of maintenance for a print head of a printer. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance method taught by Matsuoka to also apply a push of the wetting liquid into the plurality of nozzles taught by Kurata. This would have been done for the purpose of obtaining a higher cleaning effect (Kurata, column 3, line 17.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matsuoka and Kurata teaches the method
according to claim 1, Matsuoka further discloses wherein the method comprises the
step of:
d) spitting out the wetting liquid residing in the plurality of ink nozzles after the first wipe before commencing printing (Paragraph [0078] describes a flushing operation in “step S109” after the first wiping is completed.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Matsuoka and Kurata teaches the method according to claim 1, Matsuoka further discloses wherein the step of performing the first wipe comprises the step of positioning the wet tissue near the nozzle surface in a manner that the wet tissue barely touches the nozzle surface (Figure 9 displays the “wiping member 148” of the “wiping mechanism 140” wiping the “nozzle surface 18” of the “liquid ejection portion 12” described in paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matsuoka and Kurata teaches the method according to claim 1, Matsuoka further discloses wherein the step of performing the first wipe comprises the step of pushing side rollers against bars of the nozzle surface (Figure 9 displays the “wiping member 148” being pressed to the “nozzle surface 18” by the “pressing portion 144” described in paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matsuoka, Kurata, and Steinfield teaches the method according to claim 1, Matsuoka further discloses wherein the step of performing the second wipe comprises a removal of wetting liquid from the plurality of ink nozzles during the second wipe (Paragraph [0099] describes how the liquid adhering to the “nozzle surface 18” is removed by the “wiper member 148”.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Matsuoka (US 20210146689 A1) in view of Kurata et al. (US 5552811), Arai et al. and
Steinfield et al. (US 20080266342 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of Yamaguchi (US 20090289993 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matsuoka and Kurata teaches the method according to claim 1.
Modified Matsuoka fails to teach wherein the step of performing the second wipe comprises the step of applying the second contact pressure by means of springs which load bias a roller which presses the tissue to the nozzle surface in order to ensure a constant contact pressure.
However, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the step of performing the second wipe comprises the step of applying the second contact pressure by means of springs which load bias a roller which presses the tissue to the nozzle surface in order to ensure a constant contact pressure (Figures 6A-B display a “raising spring 45” that biases the “lower link 44b”, that contains “rollers 42”, upward. This causes the “cleaning belt 41” to make contact with the “ink liquid discharging surface 21” under a “predetermined pressure” as described in paragraph [0073]).
Modified Matsuoka and Yamaguchi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving methods of cleaning the nozzle surface. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance method taught by Matsuoka to also apply wherein the step of performing the second wipe comprises the step of applying the second contact pressure by means of springs which load bias a roller which presses the tissue to the nozzle surface in order to ensure a constant contact pressure taught by Yamaguchi. This would have been done for the purpose of adjusting the press-contact force of the cleaning component to the nozzle surface (Yamaguchi, paragraph [0081]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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) 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 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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights