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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “S1” has been used to designate both a direction in Fig. 2-5 and what appears to be a sensor in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: S1, S30, S4, 230, 240, 210, and 400 all found in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is 229 words instead of 150 words or less. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuzaki teaches a treatment liquid attachment step of ejecting a treatment liquid containing an aggregating agent from an 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 an ink jet head for ink and attaching the ink composition to the recording medium (paragraphs [0006] and [0008]), wherein the treatment liquid attachment step and the ink attachment step are performed by scanning which is performed while moving the ink jet head for a treatment liquid and the ink jet head for ink with respect to the recording medium (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 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. 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 method of Matsuzaki 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 and Okuda 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 and Okuda 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 and Okuda 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 and Okuda 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) and Okuda (US 20160082763 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamijo et al. (US 20200101781 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuzaki and Okuda 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 and Okuda 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 and Okuda 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 and Okuda 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) and Okuda (US 20160082763 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seguchi et al. (US 20210062029 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuzaki and Okuda 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 and Okuda 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asakawa et al. (US 20210170779 A1) and Kagata et al. (US 20180265725 A1) are cited as having methods similar to the claimed invention.
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
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights