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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karita et al (U.S. Pub. 2017/0197417)
Regarding claims 1, 19-20, a printing apparatus, comprising: an ink discharge head including a plurality of discharge ports (nozzles) that respectively discharge a plurality of types of ink (Figures 1-2), and a plurality of circulation paths for circulating ink between the plurality of discharge ports and a plurality of liquid chambers (3; liquid ejection head) that respectively house the plurality of types of ink (Abstract; Paragraphs 0047, 0049, 0051; plurality of circulation path for the four colors)
A circulation mechanism (Figure 2) that circulates ink in the plurality of circulation paths; and at least one process or circuit (controller; Paragraph 0112) configured to function as:
A control unit that performs control to determine, based on print data, which path among the plurality of circulation paths that circulation mechanism is to circulate ink in (Abstract; Paragraphs 0120, 0135; monochrome circulation system or color circulation system)
Regarding claim 2, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is configured to further function as a selection unit that selects an ink to use in printing on a basis of the print data, and wherein the control unit controls which circulation path of the plurality of circulation paths to circulate ink through according to an ink selected by the selection unit (Abstract; Paragraphs 0120, 0135; monochrome circulation system or color circulation system will be determined based on the print data)
Regarding claim 3, wherein the control unit controls the circulation mechanism to circulate ink in a circulation path associated with an ink selected by the selection unit (Abstract; Paragraphs 0120, 0135; monochrome circulation system or color circulation system)
Regarding claim 4, wherein the ink discharge head includes a plurality of chips (10) where the plurality of discharge ports are divided in arranged in rows; and the control unit controls the circulation mechanism to circulate ink in circulation paths associated with an ink with a discharge port disposed on an identical chip as a discharge port of an ink to be used in printing (Figure 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0057; 0120, 0135)
Regarding claim 15, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is configured to further function as a predicting unit that predicts a concentration level in the circulation path of ink to be circulated by the circulation mechanism (Abstract; Paragraphs 0115-0117)
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) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karita et al (U.S. Pub. 2017/0197417) in view of Hasegawa et al (U.S. Pub. 2023/0066252)
Regarding claims 5-8, Hasegawa discloses it is known in the art to discharge a plurality of inks, including: process colors (CMYK), primer, and spot colors (clear, glossy, fluorescent, metallic, orange, red, violet, blue and green inks). It would have been obvious to incorporate discharged heads with a plurality of head chips to discharge various combinations of the process colors, primers and spot colors (Paragraph 0054)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hasegawa into the device of Karita, for the purpose of performing different and a variety of print operations with the plurality of discharged inks
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karita et al (U.S. Pub. 2017/0197417) in view of Mitsuzawa (U.S. Pub. 2004/0130586)
Regarding claims 9-10, Mitsuzawa discloses a plurality of color rows, including black, cyan, light cyan, magenta, light magenta, and yellow nozzle rows. Wherein Mitsuzawa discloses there is no limitation and the ink colors may be arranged in other orders (Paragraph 0122)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mitsuzawa into the device of Karita, for the purpose of producing a plurality of color variations from the liquid discharge head
Claim(s) 11-14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karita et al (U.S. Pub. 2017/0197417) in view of Nishimura et al (U.S. Pub. 2010/0013883)
Regarding claim 11, Nishimura discloses it is known in the art to measure a circulation path elapsed time of how long ink circulation has not been performed during a printing operation of the printing apparatus (Abstract; Paragraphs 0004, 0044-0049, 0062-0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into the device of Karita, for the purpose of reducing nozzle contamination and producing high quality images
Regarding claim 12, Nishimura discloses it is known in the art for a suction mechanism performing suctioning of ink from the discharge port, wherein the control unit controls the suction mechanism to suction, from the discharge port, ink associated with a circulation path in which the ink is not being circulated in a case where the elapsed time is greater than a first threshold (Abstract; Paragraphs 0004, 0044-0049, 0062-0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into the device of Karita, for the purpose of reducing nozzle contamination and producing high quality images
Regarding claim 13, Nishimura discloses wherein suction by the suction mechanism is performed before a next printing operation is started (Abstract; Paragraphs 0004, 0044-0049, 0062-0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into the device of Karita, for the purpose of reducing nozzle contamination and producing high quality images
Regarding claim 14, Nishimura discloses wherein the suction mechanism includes a cap that covers the discharge port and a pump that generates negative pressure inside the cap (Abstract; Paragraphs 0004, 0044-0049, 0058, 0062-0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into the device of Karita, for the purpose of reducing nozzle contamination and producing high quality images
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura discloses the control unit performs control to perform an ink ejecting operation before a next printing operation is started for an ink not used in a previous printing operation and for which an amount of time during which circulation has not been performed during a printing operation is greater than a third threshold (Abstract; Paragraphs 0004, 0044-0049, 0058, 0062-0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nishimura into the device of Karita, for the purpose of reducing nozzle contamination and producing high quality images
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karita et al (U.S. Pub. 2017/0197417) in view of Nakano et al (U.S. Pub. 2008/0122891)
Regarding claim 16, Nakano discloses wherein the control unit controls ink to be discharged from the discharge port in a case where the concentration level is greater than a second threshold (Paragraph 0068)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nakano into the device of Karita, for the purpose of suppressing degradation in print quality
Regarding claim 17, Nakano discloses wherein ink is discharged from the discharge port before a next printing operation is started (Paragraph 0068)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nakano into the device of Karita, for the purpose of suppressing degradation in print quality
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Douglas X. 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.
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 March 5, 2026