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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claim(s) 1-14 in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claim(s) 15-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method/apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 06/03/2024 has/have been considered. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200254761 to Levy et al. (hereinafter “Levy”).
With respect to claim 1, Levy discloses an inkjet printer (inkjet printing engine 100 FIG. 1) comprising: at least one printhead module (inkjet print cartridges 104 FIG. 1 and FIG. 2); and a printhead maintenance station (cartridge resting structures 102 FIG. 1 and FIG. 2), the printhead maintenance station including: a first receptacle, the first receptacle being configured to mate with a faceplate of a first printhead (cap 112 FIG.s 1-5); a first nozzle in the first receptacle, the first nozzle being configured to emit a first fluid mist onto the faceplate mated to the first receptacle (humidifier 124 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4); and a controller configured to operate the first nozzle at predetermined time intervals to maintain a film of the first fluid mist on the faceplate mated to the first receptacle (controller 224 FIG. 16, [0027], [0033], [0050]).
With respect to claim 9, Levy discloses the printhead maintenance station further comprising: a second receptacle, the second receptacle being configured to mate with a faceplate of a second printhead (cartridge resting structures 102 FIG. 1 and FIG. 2); a first nozzle in the second receptacle, the first nozzle in the second receptacle being configured to emit a first fluid mist onto the faceplate mated to the second receptacle (humidifier 124 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4); and the controller being further configured to operate the first nozzle in the second receptacle at the predetermined time intervals independently of the first nozzle in the first receptacle (cap 112 FIG.s 1-5, humidifier 124 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, controller 224 FIG. 16, [0027], [0033], [0050]).
With respect to claim 11, Levy discloses an inkjet printer (inkjet printing engine 100 FIG. 1) comprising: at least one printhead module (inkjet print cartridges 104 FIG. 1 and FIG. 2); and a printhead maintenance station (cartridge resting structures 102 FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) having: a first receptacle, the first receptacle being configured to mate with a faceplate of a first printhead (cap 112 FIG.s 1-5); a first nozzle in the first receptacle, the first nozzle being configured to emit a first fluid mist onto the faceplate mated to the first receptacle (humidifier 124 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4); a first humidity sensor within the first receptacle, the first humidity sensor being configured to generate a signal corresponding to a humidity level within the first receptacle (a moisture (e.g., humidity) sensor 120 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4); and a controller operatively connected to the first humidity sensor (224 FIG. 16), the controller being configured to: compare the signal generated by the first humidity sensor to a predetermined range of humidity levels that correspond to a drying rate of a liquid ejected by the first printhead (224 FIG. 16 [0031]-[0033]); and supply a solvent to the first nozzle to maintain the humidity level within the first receptacle within the predetermined range of humidity levels that correspond to a drying rate of a liquid ejected by the first printhead (224 FIG. 16 [0031]-[0033]).
With respect to claim 12, Levy discloses the printhead maintenance station further comprising: a second receptacle, the second receptacle being configured to mate with a faceplate of a second printhead (cartridge resting structures 102 FIG. 1 and FIG. 2); a first nozzle in the second receptacle, the first nozzle in the second receptacle being configured to emit a first fluid mist onto the faceplate mated to the second receptacle (humidifier 124 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4); a second humidity sensor within the second receptacle, the second humidity sensor being configured to generate a signal corresponding to a humidity level within the second receptacle (a moisture (e.g., humidity) sensor 120 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4); and the controller operatively connected to the second humidity sensor (224 FIG. 16 [0031]-[0033]), the controller being configured to: compare the signal generated by the second humidity sensor to a predetermined range of humidity levels that correspond to a drying rate of a liquid ejected by the second printhead (224 FIG. 16 [0031]-[0033]); and supply a solvent to the first nozzle in the second receptacle to maintain the humidity level within the second receptacle within the predetermined range of humidity levels that correspond to a drying rate of a liquid ejected by the second printhead (224 FIG. 16 [0031]-[0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claim(s) 2-7, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200254761 to Levy et al. (hereinafter “Levy”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20060284922 to Beak (hereinafter “Beak”).
With respect to claim 2, Levy discloses the printhead maintenance station further comprising: an actuator operatively connected to the first printhead, the actuator being configured to move the first printhead between a first position where the faceplate of the first printhead does not mate with the first receptacle and a second position where the faceplate of the first printhead mates with the first receptacle (actuator/track structure 103 FIG.s 1-3); and the controller is operatively connected to the actuator, the controller being further configured to: and operate the actuator to move the first printhead to the second position (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0050]).
However, Levy fails to specifically disclose:
detect a condition indicative of maintenance needed for the first printhead.
Beak discloses:
detect a condition indicative of maintenance needed for the first printhead (25 Maintenance needed determining unit FIG. 2 of Beak).
At the time of the invention, 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 maintenance needed determining unit as disclosed by Beak with the method/apparatus of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to better determine when the maintenance was needed. ([0045] of Beak).Additionally, determining when the maintenance is needed to keep the nozzles properly functioning was common practice at the time of the invention.
With respect to claim 3, Levy in view of Beak discloses wherein the condition is a number of inoperative inkjets in the first printhead (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0050] and 25 Maintenance needed determining unit FIG. 2 of Beak).
With respect to claim 4, Levy in view of Beak discloses wherein the condition is an image metric that is outside a predetermined threshold (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0050] and 25 Maintenance needed determining unit FIG. 2 of Beak).
With respect to claim 5, Levy in view of Beak discloses wherein the condition is a number of inkjet images printed by the first printhead (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0044]-[0050] and 25 Maintenance needed determining unit FIG. 2 of Beak).
With respect to claim 6, Levy in view of Beak discloses wherein the condition is an expiration of a time interval between printhead maintenance operations (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0044]-[0050]).
With respect to claim 7, Levy in view of Beak discloses wherein the condition is a number of ink images printed within a predetermined period of time (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0044]-[0050] and 25 Maintenance needed determining unit FIG. 2 of Beak).
With respect to claim 13, Levy in view of Beak discloses the printhead maintenance station further comprising: an actuator operatively connected to the first printhead, the actuator being configured to move the first printhead between a first position where the faceplate of the first printhead does not mate with the first receptacle and a second position where the faceplate of the first printhead mates with the first receptacle (actuator/track structure 103 FIG.s 1-3); and the controller is operatively connected to the actuator (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0050]), the controller being further configured to: and operate the actuator to move the first printhead to the second position (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0050]).
However, Levy fails to specifically disclose:
detect a condition indicative of maintenance needed for the first printhead.
Beak discloses:
detect a condition indicative of maintenance needed for the first printhead (25 Maintenance needed determining unit FIG. 2 of Beak).
At the time of the invention, 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 maintenance needed determining unit as disclosed by Beak with the method/apparatus of Levy. The motivation for doing so would have been to better determine when the maintenance was needed. ([0045] of Beak).Additionally, determining when the maintenance is needed to keep the nozzles properly functioning was common practice at the time of the invention.
With respect to claim 14, Levy in view of Beak discloses wherein the condition is one of a number of inoperative inkjets in the first printhead, an image metric that is outside a predetermined threshold, a number of inkjet images printed by the first printhead, an expiration of a time interval between printhead maintenance operations, a number of ink images printed within a predetermined period of time (controller 224 FIG. 16 and FIG.s 1-3 [0027], [0033], [0044]-[0050] and 25 Maintenance needed determining unit FIG. 2 of Beak).
2. Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200254761 to Levy et al. (hereinafter “Levy”).
With respect to claim 8, Levy discloses a second nozzle in the first receptacle, the second nozzle being configured to emit a second fluid mist onto the faceplate of the first printhead mated to the first receptacle; and a controller being configured to operate the second nozzle independently of the first nozzle in the first receptacle (nozzle 124 and 130 [0050] FIG.s 5-8 11 and 12)
However, Levy fails to specifically disclose:
second nozzle in the first receptacle.
Levy teaches a second nozzle but does not specifically teach a second nozzle in the first receptacle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the nozzle, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have been motivated to duplicate the nozzle for the purpose of better supply of amounts of moisture in the receptacle.
With respect to claim 10, Levy discloses a second nozzle in the second receptacle, the second nozzle being configured to emit a second fluid mist onto the faceplate of the printhead mated to the second receptacle; and the controller being further configured to operate the second nozzle at the predetermined time intervals independently of the first nozzle in the second receptacle (cap 112 FIG.s 1-5, humidifier 124 FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, controller 224 FIG. 16, [0027], [0033], [0050]). (nozzle 124 and 130 [0050] FIG.s 5-8 11 and 12)
However, Levy fails to specifically disclose:
a second nozzle in the second receptacle.
Levy teaches a second nozzle but does not specifically teach a second nozzle in the second receptacle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to duplicate the nozzle, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would have been motivated to duplicate the nozzle for the purpose of better supply of amounts of moisture in the receptacle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley W Thies whose telephone number is (571)270-5667. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 am -6:00 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY W THIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights