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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumiya (JP2013180527 A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumiya discloses a droplet discharge device (10), comprising:
a droplet discharge head (71) configured to discharge droplets of a coloring liquid;
a supply unit (50) configured to supply the coloring liquid to the droplet discharge head;
and a controller configured to control each unit, wherein during at least a part of a maintenance period after a discharge period in which droplets of the coloring liquid are discharged from the droplet discharge head, the controller controls the supply unit to supply the coloring liquid having a lower viscosity than that of the coloring liquid in the discharge period to the droplet discharge head (implicitly describes a controller in pg. 6 paragraph 5, and lowering the viscosity in (pg. 5 paragraphs 6, 8-9)).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumiya teaches wherein the coloring liquid is a pseudoplastic fluid whose viscosity decreases as a shear rate increases (MPEP 2115 states material or article worked upon my does not limit apparatus claims),
the supply unit (55) is a circulation mechanism configured to supply the coloring liquid to the droplet discharge head while controlling a circulation flow rate of the coloring liquid circulating between the supply unit and the droplet discharge head (pg. 4 paragraph 6)
and during at least a part of the maintenance period, the controller controls the circulation mechanism to increase the circulation flow rate of the coloring liquid to be higher than the circulation flow rate of the coloring liquid in the discharge period (the prior art discloses the claimed structural features hence, the prior art is capable of operating with any of the claimed material).
Regarding claims 3-6, Applicant’s claims are directed to intended use. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Further, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumiya discloses wherein the droplet discharge head comprises: a discharge unit comprising a nozzle (71), a pressurizing chamber connected to the nozzle, and a pressurizing unit (59) configured to apply pressure to the pressurizing chamber to discharge droplets of the coloring liquid from the nozzle; a supply manifold (50) connected to the pressurizing chamber and configured to supply the coloring liquid to the pressurizing chamber; and a recovery manifold (30) connected to the pressurizing chamber and configured to recover the coloring liquid from the pressurizing chamber, and during at least a part of the maintenance period, the controller controls the circulation mechanism to cause the pressurizing unit to apply pressure to the pressurizing chamber while increasing the circulation flow rate of the coloring liquid (implicitly describes a controller in pg. 6 paragraph 5 and paragraph 4 second to last paragraph and further, the prior art discloses the claimed structural features hence, the prior art is capable of operating with any of the claimed material).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumiya discloses a maintenance method for a droplet discharge device comprising: a droplet discharge head (71) configured to discharge droplets of a coloring liquid; and a supply mechanism (50) configured to supply the coloring liquid to the droplet discharge head, the maintenance method comprising: during at least a part of a maintenance period after a discharge period in which droplets of the coloring liquid are discharged from the droplet discharge head, controlling the supply mechanism to supply the coloring liquid having a lower viscosity than that of the coloring liquid in the discharge period to the droplet discharge head (the viscosity is disclosed in (pg. 5 paragraphs 6, 8-9)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumiya (JP2013180527 A) in view of Kobayashi (WO2021/085501 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumiya does not explicitly disclose a robotic arm on which the droplet discharge head is mounted such that the posture of the droplet discharge head is changeable, wherein during at least a part of the maintenance period, the controller controls the circulation mechanism to increase the circulation flow rate of the coloring liquid and controls the robotic arm to change the posture of the droplet discharge head. However, analogous art, Kobayashi, discloses a robotic arm that controls the discharge head and the controller controls the discharge head [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a robotic arm in order to have a 6-axis articulated robot (pg.3 paragraph 2) and "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant’s claims are directed to intended use. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Further, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 9, Matsumiya discloses wherein the droplet discharge head comprises: a supply port (55) for supplying the coloring liquid to the inside of the droplet discharge head;
and a recovery port (30) for recovering the coloring liquid from the inside of the droplet discharge head,
and the controller changes the posture of the droplet discharge head to a posture in which one of the supply port and the recovery port is located higher than the other (the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant’s claims are directed to intended use. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Further, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumiya (JP2013180527 A).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumiya discloses wherein the coloring liquid is a pseudoplastic fluid whose viscosity decreases as a shear rate increases (MPEP 2115 states material or article worked upon my does not limit apparatus claims),
the supply unit (55) is a circulation mechanism configured to supply the coloring liquid to the droplet discharge head while controlling a circulation flow rate of the coloring liquid circulating between the supply unit and the droplet discharge head,
the droplet discharge head comprises: a discharge unit comprising a nozzle (71), a pressurizing chamber (42) connected to the nozzle,
and a pressurizing unit (44) configured to apply pressure to the pressurizing chamber to discharge droplets of the coloring liquid from the nozzle;
a supply manifold (40) connected to the pressurizing chamber and configured to supply, to the pressurizing chamber, the coloring liquid supplied from a supply port side of the droplet discharge head;
and a recovery manifold (20) connected to the pressurizing chamber and configured to recover the coloring liquid from the pressurizing chamber and send out the coloring liquid to a recovery port side of the droplet discharge head,
the pressurizing chamber and the supply manifold are connected to each other via a separate supply channel (46),
Matsumiya does not explicitly disclose the pressurizing chamber and the recovery manifold are connected to each other via a separate recovery channel, a channel resistance of the separate recovery channel is smaller than a channel resistance of the separate supply channel, and during at least a part of the maintenance period. However, MPEP 2144.04 VI discloses In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the channel since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
As for the controller controls the circulation mechanism to circulate the coloring liquid from the recovery port toward the supply port, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Jackson et al (US 2022/0339931 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights