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 § 103
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitabatake et al. (U.S. 8,485,620 B2) in view of Taniguchi (7,128,390 B2).
Kitabatake et al. discloses, with regards to claim:
A recording apparatus comprising (fig. 1):
a recording head (22) including a tank configured to store ink (23), a liquid chamber (fig. 2A, common liquid chamber inside printhead between ~55 and 49) connected to the tank, a filter (48) arranged between the tank (23) and the liquid chamber (~55 -> 49), and a discharge port (22) configured to discharge ink supplied from the liquid chamber;
a cap (fig. 1, element 24) configured to cover the discharge port (22); and
a suction pump (25) configured to suction ink from the recording head via the cap, wherein the suction pump performs a first suction on the recording head (-80 kPa, column 7, line 12), stops the first suction on the recording head, and then performs a second suction (-20 kPa, column 7, line 58, fig. 5, S4, -80kPa, S9 -20 kPa, ).
2. The recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the discharge port is exposed to atmosphere to stop suction on the recording head (this is a recitation of intended use of the apparatus, and in the reference, exposing the discharge port to atmosphere stops the suction).
4. The recording apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a liquid container (1) configured to store ink; and
a tube (20) configured to connect the liquid container to the recording head (21-23), wherein ink is supplied from the liquid container to the recording head via the tube.
12. The recording apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the cap is separated from the recording head to perform the exposure to atmosphere (this is an apparatus claim, the device is capable of separation of the cap from the head, which exposes the head to atmosphere).
Kitabatake et al. does not disclose
1. The second suction at a maximum drive speed that is higher than a drive speed at time of end of the first suction.
However, optimizing different suction routines based on geometry of the printhead, degree of removal required, ink viscosity, and other factors, would have been well within the ordinary skill level in the art at the time the invention was filed. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have general knowledge of fluid dynamics, basic chemistry of the fluid, would understand how the structure of the printhead and nozzles influences bubble removal, would understand that different sizes/degrees of removal may be required depending on factors such as idle time, temperature, ink viscosity, etc., and would be capable of discovering optimum suction forces and suction times to remove the bubbles effectively through routine experimentation.
Taniguchi discusses suction amounts, small ones being insufficient to remove enough ink, large ones causing wasteful ink consumption and eventually possibly inducing more bubbles (column 2, lines 5-23).
Taniguchi therefore uses a two phase suction operation, with a first low suction operation of .12kgf/cm2 for .5 seconds to remove residual ink, and a second higher suction operation of 1.7kgf/cm2 for .5 seconds to remove bubbles (column 11, lines 45-63, column 12, lines 34-59).
It is also noted that Taniguchi discloses exposing to atmosphere to stop the suction (column 12, lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified Kitabatake to use the suction method of Taniguchi for the purpose of striking a balance between ink flushing, bubble removal, and ink consumption that maintains proper running of the printer (column 3, lines 4-8) and efficiently performs bubble removal.
With regards to claim 3, Kitabatake as modified does not expressly disclose the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the tank includes an absorbent member.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that ink tank absorbent members were well known in the art at the time of the invention.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have included an absorbent member in the ink tank of Kitabatake for the purpose of stabilizing nozzle pressure and trapping air bubbles, while improving ink supply.
With regards to claim 5, the combination teaches that in the second suction, suction on the recording head by the suction pump and stoppage of the suction are performed a plurality of times since the invention performs the entire suction operation plural times over the life of the printer.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to perform the second suction plural times so as to improve bubble removal when necessary.
The combination does not disclose regarding claim 6 that the second suction takes shorter time than the first suction.
Taniguchi performs the suction operations for the same time period of .5 seconds.
However, merely modifying the time during which the suction force is provided was well within the ordinary skill level in the art so as to find a balance between bubble removal and ink consumption.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have performed the suction force for a shorter time than the first suction so as to reduce ink consumption, while removing the bubbles.
With regards to claim 7, the combination teaches that before the first suction is performed, a third suction is performed at a maximum drive speed that is higher than a speed at time of end of the first suction. This occurs since the suction operations are performed multiple times over the operating life of the printer, such as at a first instance, when the printer is first powered on, and then hours or days later, whereby a maximum suction operation is performed at 1.7 kgf/cm2 at some point in time before a .12 kgf/cm2 operation. In such a situation, concerning claim 8, suction on the recording head is stopped between the third suction and the first suction.
Similarly to the above, it would have been obvious to modify the combination such that:
10. the second suction takes longer time than the third suction.
11. the third suction takes longer time than first suction.
Merely modifying the time during which the suction force is provided was well within the ordinary skill level in the art so as to find a balance between bubble removal and ink consumption.
Method claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as the apparatus claims discussed above.
It is noted that the apparatus claims recite the pump configured to perform the suction operations, without reciting a controller. It is the controller which controls the pump operations. Pumps in the prior art are capable of being controlled in the manner claimed and the use of the phrase “configured to” does not actually require the pump to perform the functions explicitly since it is a controller which controls the pump to perform the operations. It is respectfully suggested that applicant recite some sort of controller, and tie the functional language to the controller, instead of the pump.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kitabatake teaches away from a second suction process with a pressure higher than the first suction process, since Kitabatake teaches only the bubbles downstream of the filter 48 are ejected, while minimizing ejecting wasted ink, such that controlling the pump to target a higher pressure would be contrary to the objectives of Kitabatake.
Taniguchi discusses wasted ink, stating that, “When the suction amount is large, the ink is wastefully consumed” (column 2, lines 12-13) and “When the suction pressure is too low, the bubble cannot be sucked” (column 2, lines 17-18). Taniguchi also teaches that the higher pressure is used since “in many cases the bubbles… are not sucked but remain.” (column 12, lines 43-46).
Therefore, the prior art as a whole is teaching tradeoffs between ink usage, and bubble suction, and is suggesting using the higher suction to remove bubbles that remain in certain situations, even when there is large ink consumption. The argument is not persuasive, and the prior art is deemed to be teaching tradeoffs between consumption and ink removal, and not merely teaching away from the higher suction force. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the suction force, despite increased ink consumption, so as to maintain the printhead in good operating order.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
JULIAN D. HUFFMAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights