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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has not be received and attempts to retrieve it have failed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 23 July 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISAWA (US 2023/0094884 A1) in view of Kida et al. (US 2020/0047512 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, MISAWA teaches a recording device comprising: a recording section that records an image on a medium by ejecting liquid onto the medium (MISAWA – Page 4, Paragraph 61 and Figures 1 & 2, Reference #34 & #P, shown below); a supply section that supplies liquid to the recording section (MISAWA – Page 4, Paragraphs 61-62 and Figures 1, Reference #5 & #34, shown below); a substrate unit; and a frame to which the substrate unit is attached, wherein the frame is located between the supply section and the substrate unit (MISAWA – Page 5, Paragraphs 92-95 and Figures 4-5, Reference #50 & #60, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
602
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
562
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 1, MISAWA does not specifically teach a flow space through which air flows. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize the need to have air flow through the recording device of MISAWA and specifically have it flow into and out of the frame and/or case in an effort to keep the heat from the substrate unit(s) from impacting the temperature of the print unit and/or supplies. Meanwhile, Kida et al. teaches a recording device with a recording section, a supply section, a substrate unit, and a frame (Kida et al. – Figure 4, Reference #8 & #151, Figure 10, Reference #151 & #20, Figure 11, Reference #20, #61, & #62, all shown below) and specifically teaches the substrate unit is provided so that it defines a flow space through which air flows between the substrate unit and the frame [i.e. air flows between the substrate unit and the frame in an effort to flow through the vents in the housing covers to enter and exit the housing] (Kida et al. – Page 7, Paragraphs 81-83 and Figure 16, Reference #73 & #74).
PNG
media_image5.png
696
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
360
460
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
468
472
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
584
464
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As related to independent claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the flow space of MISAWA to define a space through which air flows as taught by Kida et al. in an effort to provide a recording device which keeps the enclosed supplies and recording head at a temperature that prevents the increase in viscosity of ink a defective ink ejection (Kida et al. – Page 7, Paragraphs 75-76).
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of MISAWA and Kida et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the substrate unit is attached to the frame so as to define a flow space through which air flows between the substrate unit and the frame (Kida et al. – Figure 11, Reference #62, #61, & #20, shown above and Figure 13, Reference Airflow Arrows, shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
698
454
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of MISAWA and Kida et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a housing that houses the recording section, the supply section, the substrate unit, and the frame (MISAWA – Figures 1 & 4 and Kida et al. – Figures 11, 13, & 16, all shown above), wherein the frame has a facing surface that faces the substrate unit, the facing surface extends in a vertical direction and in one direction intersecting the vertical direction, the housing has one surface that extends along the facing surface, and a through hole that is configured to bring the flow space into communication with outside of the housing is opened in the one surface (Kida et al. – Figures 11, 13, & 16, Reference #73 & #74, all shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 4, the combination of MISAWA and Kida et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a shield plate that is located between the supply section and the substrate unit (Kida et al. – Figure 10, Reference #156, #151, & #X and Figure 11, Reference #20 & #X, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 5, the combination of MISAWA and Kida et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the shield plate is attached to the frame, the frame has a plurality of frame members that are located so as to provide a gap in the vertical direction, and the shield plate covers the gap between the frame members by being attached to a plurality of the frame members (Kida et al. – Figure 10, Reference #1561 & #X and Figure 11, Reference #4 & #X, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of MISAWA and Kida et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the plurality of frame members have facing surfaces that face the substrate unit, the facing surfaces extend in one direction and in the vertical direction, the shield plate is attached to the facing surfaces, and when the facing surfaces are viewed from the front side, the shield plate overlaps the supply section (Kida et al. – Figure 10, Reference #1561, #151, #Y & #X and Figure 11, Reference #4, #20, #14, #Y & #X, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 7, the combination of MISAWA and Kida et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a transport section that transports the medium, wherein the frame has a facing surface that faces the substrate unit, the facing surface extends in one direction and in the vertical direction, and when viewed from the one direction side, the supply section is located between the frame and the transport section (MISAWA – Figure 1, Reference #2, #5, & #16, shown above and Kida et al. – Figure 4, Reference #4, #14, #6A & #7, shown above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim [claim 1], but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim [claim 1] and the intervening claims [claim 2 & 8].
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As related to further dependent claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach a duct that brings the flow space into communication with outside of the recording device and into communication with a flow path space created by the supply section that connects to the recording section and the flow path space is defined as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagashima et al. (US 9,434,175 B2) teaches a recording device with multiple substrate units. SASAKI (US 2019/0047306 A1) teaches a recording device with a cooling fan incorporated with a duct to create flow path spaces. Morisawa (US 12,358,307 B2) teaches a recording device with multiple substrate units. Glennon Benjamin et al. (US 12,441,124 B2) teaches a recording device with an ink supply an air management module and an ink printhead.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853