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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Matsuzaki (US 20200270473 A1) in view of Okuda (US 20160082763 A1) and Sasaki et al. (US 20170239938 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuzaki teaches a method using a recording apparatus (Fig. 2 element 1 and paragraph [0040]) equipped with an inkjet head for a treatment liquid (Fig. 1 element 2 and paragraph [0046]), an inkjet head for an ink (Fig. 1 element 2 and paragraph [0046]) and a platen (Fig. 1 element 4 and paragraph [0046],) the method comprising treatment liquid attachment step of ejecting a treatment liquid containing an aggregating agent from the ink jet head for a treatment liquid and attaching the treatment liquid to a recording medium (paragraphs [0006] and [0008] wherein the coagulant is the aggregating agent); and an ink attachment step of ejecting an aqueous ink composition containing a coloring material from the ink jet head for ink and attaching the ink composition to the recording medium (paragraphs [0006] and [0008]), a transport step of transporting the medium (paragraph [0053]), wherein the platen has an upper surface parallel to an XY plane and supports the recording medium (Fig. 1 element 4), wherein the treatment liquid attachment step and the ink attachment step are performed by scanning (paragraph [0006]) the treatment liquid and the ink composition are attached to a same scanning region in the same scanning (paragraph [0161]), the aggregating agent is a calcium salt (paragraph [0165]), and in the treatment liquid attachment step and the ink attachment step, an air blowing step of blowing air onto the recording medium is provided (paragraph [0046] wherein the blowing also happens during the treatment liquid attachment step since, according to paragraph [0161], the ink and treatment attachment steps happen at the same time).
But Matsuzaki fails to teach during the transport step, the recording medium is transported toward the platen in an X-axis direction and comes to a stop on the platen, wherein the scanning is performed while moving the ink jet head for a treatment liquid and the ink jet head for ink along the X axis with respect to the recording medium that is stopped on the platen, and a content of the calcium salt with respect to a total mass of the treatment liquid is 0.35 mol/kg or less, and in the treatment liquid attachment step, a range of a maximum value of an attachment amount of the calcium salt in a region of the recording medium to which the treatment liquid and the ink composition are attached is 0.6 μmol/inch2 or less.
Sasaki et al. teaches a printing method wherein during the transport step, the recording medium is transported toward the platen (Fig. 1 element 30 and paragraph [0032]) in an X-axis direction and comes to a stop on the platen (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0042]), wherein the scanning is performed while moving the ink jet head for a treatment liquid and the ink jet head for ink along the X axis with respect to the recording medium that is stopped on the platen (Fig. 1 element 31 and paragraph [0040]).
Okuda teaches a treatment liquid containing a calcium salt (paragraphs [0033] and [0034]) wherein a content of the calcium salt with respect to a total mass of the treatment liquid is 0.35 mol/kg or less (paragraph [0036]), and in the treatment liquid attachment step, a range of a maximum value of an attachment amount of the calcium salt in a region of the recording medium to which the treatment liquid and the ink composition are attached is 0.6 μmol/inch2 or less (paragraph [0024] and [0050] wherein 100 nmol/inch2 and 1500 nmol/inch2 are equal to .1 μmol/inch2 and 1.5 μmol/inch2 respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the overall method of Matsuzaki with the transport and scanning method of Sasaki et al. as a simple substitution of one transport and scanning method for another to yield a printer capable of printing across the entire medium efficiently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Matsuzaki and Sasaki et al. with the calcium amount of Okuda because the calcium amount of Okuda solves “the problem of the trade-off between improving the aggregability and the odor and the recorded matter durability with a smaller attachment amount of the aggregating agent regardless of the type of target recording medium” (Okuda paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Matsuzaki teaches the number of times of the scanning in which the ink composition is attached to the same scanning region is 10 or less (paragraph [0186]).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Matsuzaki teaches in the treatment liquid attachment step and the ink attachment step, a surface temperature of the recording medium to which the attachment is applied is 35°C or lower (paragraph [0199]).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Matsuzaki teaches the calcium salt is a calcium salt of an organic acid (paragraphs [0164]- [0166]).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Matsuzaki teaches an apparatus comprising the treatment liquid (paragraph [0006]), the ink composition (paragraph [0006]), the ink jet head for a treatment liquid (Fig. 3 elements 15a, b, c, and d paragraph [0056]) and the ink jet head for ink (Fig. 3 element 16 and paragraph [0056]).
Claim 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki (US 20200270473 A1) Okuda (US 20160082763 A1) and Sasaki et al. (US 20170239938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamijo et al. (US 20200101781 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to teach wherein the air blowing in the air blowing step has a wind speed of 1.5 m/s or higher.
Kamijo et al. teaches a printing method with a treatment solution containing calcium (paragraphs [0143]) and [0173]) and a wind blowing step (paragraph [0128) wherein the air blowing in the air blowing step has a wind speed of 1.5 m/s or higher (paragraph [0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Matsuzaki, Okuda, and Sasaki et al. with the wind speed of Kamijo et al. to “reduce the mark of the suction hole of the platen” (paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to teach recording according to the recording method is continuously performed for one hour or longer.
Kamijo et al. teaches a printing method with a treatment solution containing calcium (paragraphs [0143]) and recording according to the recording method is continuously performed for one hour or longer (paragraph [0275]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. with the timing of Kamijo et al. as a combination of a method and timing both well known in the art to yield a method capable of printing large print jobs.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki (US 20200270473 A1), Okuda (US 20160082763 A1) and Sasaki et al. (US 20170239938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seguchi et al. (US 20210062029 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and but they are silent to a specific wind temperature of the air blowing in the air blowing step that is 35°C or lower (in paragraph [0047] Matsukzaki states blowing air of “ordinary temperature”).
Seguchi et al. teaches a printing method with treatment liquid containing a calcium salt (paragraph [0171]) and a blowing step during ink deposition (paragraph [0238]) wherein a wind temperature of the air blowing in the air blowing step is 35°C or lower (paragraph [0238]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention of combine the method of Matsuzaki, Okuda and Sasaki et al. with the specific temperature of Seguchi et al. as a known practice in the art of blowing air of the claimed temperature to properly dry ink and treatment liquids.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights