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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the newly applied prior art teachings from Hara et al. (US 6481826 B1), which shows that it was known to provide a cap (as a “purge bath”) having a width that decreases as it leads ink towards the discharge port, which may also be considered a direction “away from the ink supply device.”
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/25/2026.
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, 15-16, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. (US 2006/0244799 A1) in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2019/0210375 A1) and Hara et al. (US 6481826 B1).
Regarding claim 1:
Sasa et al. disclose an inkjet printing device comprising:
an inkjet head (any of heads 51-54, 61);
an ink supply device (ink cartridges 31-34, ink tank 41) connected to the inkjet head (Fig. 8);
a purge bath (cap 71c) below the inkjet head (Fig. 8), and connected to the ink supply device (Fig. 8);
a first channel (collected-ink path 75) connecting the purge bath and the ink supply device (Fig. 8); and
an ink property sensor (viscosity sensor 77) in the first channel (paragraph 160 & Fig. 8).
Sasa et al. do not expressly disclose that the ink property sensor is a densitometer configured to measure a concentration of the ink, or that a width of the purge bath decreases in a direction moving away from the ink supply device.
However, Hasegawa et al. teaches that ink concentration may be measured by electrical resistivity, viscosity, density, and the like (paragraph 22).
Further, Hara et al. disclose a purge bath (capping unit 9) having a width that decreases in a direction moving toward a purge bath discharge port (Figs. 25-26) so as to guide ink each drop of ink into the discharge port (col. 22, lines 38-44 & col. 23, lines 61-67).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Sasa et al.’s ink viscosity sensor with a densitometer, as suggested by Hasegawa et al. It would have been further obvious to utilize a purge bath having a decreasing width in a direction away from the ink supply device, as taught by Hara et al., so as to guide all the ink towards the purge bath discharge port.
Regarding claim 15:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Sasa et al. also disclose that a level of the ink in the purge bath is able to be maintained at a constant level (paragraph 42 & Fig. 8).
Examiner notes that this limitation is a recitation of intended use for the claimed purge bath, and does not structurally limit the purge bath beyond its ability to maintain the level of ink. Because Sasa et al.’s cap is disclosed as capable of holding ink after purging, Sasa et al.’s disclosed structure meets all the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 16:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Sasa et al. also disclose that the printing device comprises a removal tank (waste-ink foam 76) connected to the purge bath (paragraph 85 & Fig. 8), wherein the removal tank is not connected to the ink supply device (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Sasa et al. also disclose that a blade (120) is located between the inkjet head and the purge bath (Fig. 8), wherein the blade is configured to wipe a bottom surface of the inkjet head (paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 19:
Sasa et al. disclose an inkjet printing device comprising:
an ink supply device (ink cartridges 31-34, 41: Fig. 8);
an ink storage device (subtank 61b) configured to receive ink from the ink supply device (paragraph 46 & Fig. 8);
an inkjet head (any of heads 51-54, 61) configured to receive ink from the ink storage device (Fig. 8);
a purge bath (cap 71c) configured to collect ink ejected from the inkjet head (paragraphs 42-43 & Fig. 8);
a first channel (collected-ink path 75) configured to move the ink from the purge bath to the ink supply device connecting the purge bath and the ink supply device (Fig. 8); and
an ink property sensor (viscosity sensor 77) configured to measure a property of the ink located in the first channel (paragraph 160 & Fig. 8); and
a solvent supply device (at least diluting-fluid tank 78) configured to supply a solvent of the ink to at least one of the ink supply device, the purge bath, or the first channel (paragraph 86 & Fig. 8).
Sasa et al. do not expressly disclose that the ink property sensor is a densitometer configured to measure a concentration of the ink, or that a width of the purge bath decreases in a direction moving away from the ink supply device.
However, Hasegawa et al. teaches that ink concentration may be measured by electrical resistivity, viscosity, density, and the like (paragraph 22).
Further, Hara et al. disclose a purge bath (capping unit 9) having a width that decreases in a direction moving toward a purge bath discharge port (Figs. 25-26) so as to guide ink each drop of ink into the discharge port (col. 22, lines 38-44 & col. 23, lines 61-67).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace Sasa et al.’s ink viscosity sensor with a densitometer, as suggested by Hasegawa et al. It would have been further obvious to utilize a purge bath having a decreasing width in a direction away from the ink supply device, as taught by Hara et al., so as to guide all the ink towards the purge bath discharge port.
Regarding claim 20:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 19, and Sasa et al. also disclose a first pump (72a) in the first channel (Fig. 8), the first pump configured to provide a driving force from the purge bath toward the ink supply device (paragraph 52 & Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 20, and Sasa et al. also disclose a second channel (at least one of fluid supply tubes 74) different from the first channel (Fig. 8) and configured to move the ink from the ink supply device to the purge bath (via heads: Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 22:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 21, and Sasa et al. also disclose a third channel (diluting-fluid supply tube 79) configured to move the solvent of the ink from the solvent supply device to at least one of the ink supply device, the purge bath, or the first channel (at least via heads and/or cap: Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. as modified by Hasegawa et al. and Hara et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowers (US 5373366).
Regarding claim 2:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the particulars of the densitometer.
However, Bowers disclose a densitometer that is able to compensate for changes in ink temperature and/or pressure (col. 1, lines 64-68), the densitometer comprising:
a measurement source generator (LED 16 + PD1 18);
a measurement source detector (PD2 22) configured to detect a measurement source generated from the measurement source generator (col. 3, lines 34-40 & Fig. 1); and
a controller (computer 26) configured to receive information on the measurement source from the measurement source detector and the measurement source generator, respectively (ink signal 24 and reference signal 20, respectively: col. 3, lines 34-40).
In view of Hasagewa et al.’s teachings that either ink viscosity or ink density may be used to determine ink concentration, and because both Sasa et al. and Bowers disclose ink sensors for detecting ink properties for the purpose of determining whether to modify the concentration of the ink, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to utilize Bower’s densitometer in place of Sasa et al.’s densitometer.
Regarding claim 3:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 2, and Bowers also discloses that the measurement source generator and the measurement source detector are located on opposite sides with a channel interposed therebetween (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 2, and Bowers also discloses that the measurement source generated from the measurement source generator is configured to interact with ink located in a channel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 5, and Bowers also discloses that the measurement source generator is configured to provide, to the controller, a first signal (reference signal 20) containing information on the measurement source generated from the measurement source generator (col. 3, lines 34-47),
wherein the measurement source detector is configured to provide, to the controller, a second signal (ink signal 24) containing information on the measurement source that has interacted with the ink (col. 3, lines 34-47), and
the controller is configured to generate a third signal (e.g. the “ratio”) based on the first signal and the second signal (col. 4, lines 19-30).
Regarding claim 7:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 5, and Sasa et al. also disclose that the device further comprises a solvent supply device (diluting-fluid tank 78) connected to at least one of the purge bath, the first channel, or the ink supply device (Fig. 8),
wherein the solvent supply device is controlled according to an output of the densitometer (paragraphs 92, 95); and
Bowers also disclose that the controller is configured to provide the third signal to the solvent supply device (col. 4, lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 8:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 7, and Sasa et al. also disclose that the solvent supply device that has received the third signal is configured to supply a solvent of the ink to at least one of the purge bath, the first channel, or the ink supply device (paragraph 82 & Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Sasa et al. also disclose that a filter (73) is between the densitometer and the purge bath (Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. as modified by Hasegawa et al. and Hara et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Momose (US 6491370 B2).
Regarding claim 14:
Sasa et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that an inner wall of the purge bath comprises a superhydrophobic coating film.
However, Momose disclose an inkjet printing device having a purge bath (cap 24) with an inner wall comprising a superhydrophobic coating film (col. 10, lines 7-17), so as to easily discharge ink from the purge bath (col. 10, lines 16-17).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sasa et al.’s purge bath to include a superhydrophobic coating film, such as taught by Momose.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. as modified by Hasegawa et al. and Hara et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shindo (US 2007/0279465 A1).
Regarding claim 17:
Sasa et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a second channel connecting the purge bath and the ink supply device.
However, Shindo disclose an inkjet printing device comprising first and second channels (the suction tubes 62) connecting a purge bath (cap 61) and an ink supply device (ink cartridges 2), the second channel being different from the first channel (Fig. 1), and wherein the ink flow directions of the first channel and the second channel are different (Fig. 1). Shindo teaches that such a configuration enables suction to be performed separately from different nozzles with a single suction pump (paragraph 14 & Fig. 1).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Sasa et al.’s suction channels in the manner taught by Shindo.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasa et al. as modified by Hasegawa et al. and Hara et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosomi (US 2018/0345679 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Sasa et al.’s modified device comprises all the limitations of claim 21, but does not expressly disclose a second pump in the third channel.
However, Hosomi discloses an inkjet printing device comprising a second pump (diluted solution pump 26) in a third channel (diluted solution tube 25), and configured to provide a driving force from a solvent supply device (diluted solution tank 24) toward at least one of an ink supply device, a purge bath, or a first channel (Fig. 1). Hosomi teaches that such a second pump enables controlled supply of the solvent to adjust the viscosity of the collected ink (paragraph 63).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second pump, such as that taught by Hosomi, in Sasa et al.’s third channel.
Conclusion
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).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights