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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are 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.
It is unclear what the limitation “a control section controlling a liquid ejection head, wherein the control section performs flushing, which is non-printing ejection of liquid, from a plurality of nozzles having an ejection amount determined on the basis of a height difference of the plurality of nozzles”, specifically “a height difference of the plurality of the nozzles” refers to. The Examiner is unclear if the height difference refers to a specific position of the nozzles or rather a specific position of a liquid ejection head in reference to a printing medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 10-14 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 2 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection device that includes a control section performing flushing by making an ejection amount from nozzles from a lowest portion of a nozzle row among a plurality of nozzles from a nozzle row larger than the ejection amount from other nozzles. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 3 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection device that includes a control section performing flushing by making an ejection amount from nozzles from a highest portion of a nozzle row among a plurality of nozzles from the nozzle row larger than the ejection amount from other nozzles . It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 4 is the inclusion of the limitation a liquid ejection device that includes a control section performing flushing by making an ejection amount from nozzles from the highest and lowest portions of a nozzle row among a plurality of nozzles from the nozzle row larger than the ejection amount from other nozzles. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 5 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection device that includes a control section performing flushing by reducing an ejection amount from nozzles from a lowest portion of a nozzle row, the ejection amount from nozzles from a highest portion of the nozzle row, and the ejection amount from other nozzles in this order. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 6 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection device that includes a control section measures a non-ejection time period during which a liquid ejection head doesn’t eject liquid, and an ejection amount in flushing is larger when the non-ejection time period until performing printing is a first time period than when the non-ejection time period until performing printing is a second time period, the second time period is shorter than the first time period. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 7 is the inclusion of the limitation of a liquid ejection device that includes one or more nozzles from a highest portion of a first nozzle row and one or more nozzle from a lowest portion of a second nozzle row overlap in a transport direction. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 8 is the inclusion of the limitation a liquid ejection device that includes wherein a liquid ejection head is a line head extending in a width direction. It is this limitation found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 10 is the inclusion of a control method that includes the method steps of performing flushing by setting an ejection from one or more nozzles from a lowest portion of a nozzle row among a plurality of nozzles from the nozzle row to be larger than the ejection amount from the other plurality of nozzles. It is these steps found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 11 is the inclusion of a control method that includes the method steps of performing flushing by setting an ejection from one or more nozzles from a highest portion of a nozzle row among a plurality of nozzles from the nozzle row to be larger than the ejection amount from the other plurality of nozzles. It is these steps found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 12 is the inclusion of a control that includes the method steps of performing flushing by setting an ejection amount from one or more nozzles from a highest and lowest portions of a nozzle row among a plurality of nozzles from the nozzle row to be larger than the ejection amount from the one or more other plurality of nozzles. It is these steps found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 13 is the inclusion of a control method that includes the method steps of performing flushing by reducing an ejection amount from nozzles from a lowest portion of a nozzle row, an ejection amount from a highest portion of the nozzle row, and an ejection amount from other nozzles in this order. It is these steps found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim(s) 14 is the inclusion of a control method that includes the method steps of measuring a non-ejection time period during which a liquid ejection head that doesn’t eject liquid, ejecting with an ejection amount in flushing is set to be larger when the non-ejection time period until performing printing is a first time period, than when the non-ejection time period until performing printing is a second time period, the second time period is shorter than the first time period. It is these steps found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. United States Patent Application Publication No. (2011/0050765 A1) to Nishida (hereinafter Nishida).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishida teaches a liquid ejection device (10, Fig. 1) [Paragraph 0028] comprising: a liquid ejection head (20, Fig. 1) that performs printing by ejecting liquid from a plurality of nozzles (22a, 22b, 22c, Fig. 2) in an ejection direction, which intersects a vertical direction, with respect to a medium transported in a transport direction and a control section (10F, Fig. 1) configured to control the liquid ejection head (20) [Paragraphs 0028-0031], the liquid ejection head (20) is provided with a nozzle row in which a plurality of the nozzles (22a, 22b, 22c) is arranged in parallel [see Fig. 1], the control section (10F) performs flushing, which is ejection of liquid not related to printing [Abstract].
Nishida fails to teach wherein the liquid includes a pigment component, and the control section performs flushing, which is ejection of liquid not related to printing, from the plurality of nozzles with an ejection amount based on a height difference of the plurality of nozzles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, 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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853