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 Species A, claims 1-8, 11, 13, 15-18, and 20 in the reply filed on 16 January 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 § 818.01(a)). Claims 9, 10, 12, 14, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The examiner notes to applicant that claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration for being dependent upon nonelected claim 12.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 June 2024, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 07 June 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the method comprises operating the pump such that a liquid in the downstream flow channel flow in the upstream flow channel.” While the examiner can generally ascertain the flow of liquid in an ink jet printing method, it is not clear how operating the pump moves the liquid in the downstream flow channel and the liquid in the upstream flow channel. Clarification or rewording of claim 1 is required.
2. Claims 2-8, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent upon a claim with the above addressed 35 U.S.C. 112 problems (i.e. claim 1).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domae (US 9,616,673) in view of Okuda et al. (US 11,420,463).
With respect to claim 1, Domae discloses an ink jet printing method for printing an image on a print medium (Fig. 11, element 44; Column 20, lines 30-38) by discharging each of an aqueous ink (Column 11, lines 57-60, i.e. one color, Col. 20) and a liquid (Column 11, lines 57-60, i.e. another color, Col. 20) from a liquid discharge head (Fig. 11, element 1), wherein
the liquid discharge head (Fig. 1, element 1) comprises:
an element substrate (Column 1, line 45, i.e. refer to JP 06-183024 at Fig. 4, element 60) including a discharge port (Fig. 1, element N) for discharging the liquid (JP 06-183024 at paragraph 0035), a pressure chamber (JP 06-183024 at paragraph 0035) for supplying a liquid to the discharge port, and a discharge element (JP 06-183024 at Fig. 4, element 62) for generating energy for discharging the liquid (JP 06-183024 at paragraph 0035);
an upstream flow channel (Fig. 1, element 2) for supplying a liquid to the pressure chamber (Column 7, lines 29-31);
a downstream flow channel (Fig. 1, element 3) communicating with the pressure chamber (Column 7, lines 31-34);
a pump (Fig. 1, element P) communicating with the upstream flow channel and the downstream flow channel (Fig. 1, i.e. flow arrows); and
a temperature control unit (Fig. 13, element 104) configured to heat the aqueous ink or the liquid (Column 2, lines 27-31), and
the method comprises operating the pump such that a liquid in the downstream flow channel flows in the upstream flow channel (Column 7, lines 45-61).
However, Domae fails to disclose discharging each of an aqueous ink and an aqueous reaction liquid containing a reactant that reacts with the aqueous ink from a liquid discharge head.
Okuda discloses an ink jet printing method (abstract) for printing an image on a print medium (Fig. 1, element 12) by discharging each of an aqueous ink (Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L1; Column 25, line 62 – Column 27, line 24) and an aqueous reaction liquid (Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L2; Column 30, lines 22-52) containing a reactant that reacts with the aqueous ink from a liquid discharge head (Column 30, lines 31-35).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the reaction liquid disclosed by Okuda in the liquid jet unit of Domae. The motivation for doing so would have been “According to the above configuration, it is possible to provide an ink jet recording method that shows an excellent abrasion resistance of a recorded matter and suppresses generation of the foreign substances. Also, according to the above configuration, it is possible to improve a discharge stability of an ink composition from a head. Further, according to the above configuration, an unevenness of the recorded matter is suppressed by suppressing a bleeding. In addition, according to the above configuration, an image deviation of the recorded matter is suppressed” (Column 3, lines 11-20).
With respect to claim 2, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose discharging the aqueous reaction liquid (Okuda at Column 30, lines 22-52) from the discharge port (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L2) to the print medium; and applying the aqueous ink (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L1; Column 25, line 62 – Column 27, line 24) to the print medium so as to overlap with at least part of the region where the aqueous reaction liquid is applied (Okuda at Column 30, lines 31-39).
With respect to claim 3, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the aqueous ink at 25°C has a viscosity higher than (Okuda at Column 25, line 62 – Column 27, line 24) that of the aqueous reaction liquid (Okuda at Column 30, lines 22-52) at 25°C.
The examiner notes to applicant that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.
With respect to claim 4, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the temperature control unit (Domae at Fig. 13, element 104) is disposed in the element substrate (Okuda at Column 29, line 60 – Column 30, line 6).
With respect to claim 5, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 4 above disclose the element substrate (Domae at Column 1, line 45, i.e. refer to JP 06-183024 at Fig. 4, element 60) includes a temperature sensor (Okuda at Column 29, line 60 – Column 30, line 6), the ink jet printing method further comprising measuring temperature of a discharge element substrate via the temperature sensor (Okuda at Column 29, line 60 – Column 30, line 6, i.e. temperature adjustment step).
With respect to claim 6, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 4 above disclose the element substrate (Domae at Column 1, line 45, i.e. refer to JP 06-183024 at Fig. 4, element 60) includes a first discharge port row in which a plurality of the discharge ports for discharging the aqueous ink is arranged (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L1; Column 25, line 62 – Column 27, line 24) and a second discharge port row in which a plurality of the discharge ports for discharging the aqueous reaction liquid is arranged (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L2; Column 30, lines 22-52), and the temperature control unit is provided for each of the first discharge port row and the second discharge port row (Okuda at Column 29, line 60 – Column 30, line 6, i.e. temperature adjustment step).
With respect to claim 7, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the element substrate (Domae at Column 1, line 45, i.e. refer to JP 06-183024 at Fig. 4, element 60) includes a plurality of discharge port rows in which the discharge ports including a first discharge port row (Okuda at Fig. 3, element N of L1) and a second discharge port row (Okuda at Fig. 3, element N of L2) are arranged (Okuda at Column 5, lines 28-43), the second discharge port row is located at an end in the arrangement direction (Okuda at Fig. 3, element P2) of the plurality of the discharge port rows, and the method comprises discharging the aqueous ink from the discharge ports in the first discharge port row (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L1; Column 25, line 62 – Column 27, line 24), and discharging the aqueous reaction liquid from the discharge ports in the second discharge port row (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L2; Column 30, lines 22-52).
With respect to claim 8, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the liquid discharge head (Domae at Fig. 1, element 1) comprises: a plurality of the element substrates including a first element substrate (Okuda at Fig. 3, element 54) and a second element substrate (Okuda at Fig. 3, other element 54), the second element substrate is located at an end in the arrangement direction of the plurality of the element substrates (Okuda at Fig. 3, element P2), and the method comprises discharging the aqueous ink from the first element substrate (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L1; Column 25, line 62 – Column 27, line 24), and discharging the aqueous reaction liquid from the second element substrate (Okuda at Fig. 1, element 26, i.e. L2; Column 30, lines 22-52).
With respect to claim 13, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose a liquid storage portion (Domae at Fig. 1, element T) is connected to the liquid discharge head (Domae at Fig. 1, element 1) through a tube (Domae at Fig. 1, element K) that is configured to supply the aqueous ink or the aqueous reaction liquid to the liquid discharge head (Domae at Column 7, lines 40-49).
With respect to claim 15, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the pump (Domae at Fig. 1, element P) is a piezoelectric pump (Domae at Column 8, line 47).
With respect to claim 16, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose scanning the liquid discharge head (Domae at Fig. 1, element 1) while discharging a liquid (Domae at Column 20, lines 17-41).
With respect to claim 17, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 5 above disclose the liquid discharge head (Domae at Fig. 1, element T) further includes a first pressure regulation unit (Domae at Fig. 1, element S) that is configured to adjust a pressure of a liquid in the upstream flow channel (Domae at Fig. 1, element 2; Column 7, line 50 – Column 8, line 8).
With respect to claim 20, Domae in view of Okuda, as applied to claim 1 above disclose the aqueous ink (Domae at Column 11, lines 57-60) contains titanium oxide (Okuda at Column 26, lines 1-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The primary reasons for allowance for claim 11 is that applicant’s claimed invention includes an ink jet printing method for printing an image on a print medium, the method having the step of operating the pump such that a volume of a liquid flowing in the circulation path is 5.0 mL or more and 30 mL or less. It is this limitation, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
2. Claim 18 is objected to for being dependent upon claim 11.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 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, 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 03/31/2026
Prosecution Insights