DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-5 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (2016/016364) in view of Ishihara (2005/0012777).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17, Matsumoto teaches a printing apparatus, printing system and database comprising:
a printing head (fig. 3, item 35) including a plurality of nozzles (fig. 3, item 100) configured to discharge a liquid;
a cleaning unit (fig. 2, item 24) configured to perform cleaning of the printing head;
a detector (fig. 2, item 10) configured to perform a faulty-nozzle detecting process to each of the plurality of nozzles, the faulty-nozzle detecting process being a process of detecting a faulty nozzle that does not perform discharging properly (fig. 24, S106);
a database configured to store cause data used to determine a cause of a discharging fault of the nozzle (see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality); and
a control unit (fig. 2, item 6), wherein the control unit checks faulty nozzle information against the cause data to select cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit, the faulty nozzle information including a position, in the printing head, of the faulty nozzle detected by the detector (see figs. 26, 40).
Matsumoto does not teach wherein a control unit gives advice to replace a cap. Ishihara teaches this (Ishihara, [0015]-[0016], see fig. 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to issue advice on a user display signaling that a head cap should be replaced, as disclosed by Ishihara, in the device disclosed by Matsumoto because doing so would ensure replacement of the cap before serious deterioration of print quality. Upon application of this technique to the device of Matsumoto, one cause of a discharging fault would be a result of the cap.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit stores the faulty nozzle information in the database, and selects cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit on a basis of the faulty nozzle information at previous time and the faulty nozzle information at this time (Matsumoto, see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database at a previous time and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality. Note at fig. 40 that appropriate cleaning is selected based on the faulty nozzle information).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit determines a fault level of the faulty nozzle on a basis of the faulty nozzle information stored in the database (Matsumoto, see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database at a previous time and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality. Note at fig. 40 that appropriate cleaning is selected based on the faulty nozzle information).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit selects cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit on a basis of a tendency of the discharging fault (Matsumoto, Note that “a basis of the tendency of the discharging fault” could mean any number of things. See figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database at a previous time and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality. Note at fig. 40 that appropriate cleaning is selected based on the faulty nozzle information).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing head is configured to discharge a plurality of types of liquid (Matsumoto, see fig. 5, different colors), and includes a plurality of nozzle rows (Matsumoto, fig. 5, note rows) including a plurality of the nozzles configured to discharge an identical type of liquid (Matsumoto, see fig. 5), and when the number of the faulty nozzles in one or more of the nozzle rows configured to discharge an identical type of liquid is equal to or more than a first threshold value, and the number of faulty nozzles in one or more of the nozzle rows configured to discharge another type of liquid is less than the first threshold value, the control unit determines that a cause of a discharging fault is an air bubble in the printing head (Matsumoto, figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing head is configured to discharge a plurality of types of liquid, and includes a plurality of nozzle rows including a plurality of the nozzles configured to discharge an identical type of liquid (Matsumoto, see fig. 5), and when the faulty nozzle in a plurality of the nozzle rows is aligned in one line, the control unit determines that a cause of a discharging fault is that a foreign material comes into contact with the printing head (Matsumoto, figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the control unit selects cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit, on a basis of the recovery information (Matsumoto, see fig. 40).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes a display unit to display information regarding cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit (Matsumoto, [0291]).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing head pushes out a liquid within a pressure chamber with drive of an actuator to cause the liquid to be discharged from a plurality of the nozzles, and the faulty-nozzle detecting process is a process of detecting the faulty nozzle on a basis of residual vibration of the pressure chamber that occurs due to a predetermined drive signal being supplied to the actuator (Matsumoto, see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising: a display unit (Matsumoto, fig. 1, item 7) configured to display information, wherein the control unit causes the display unit to display: faulty nozzle information including a position (Matsumoto, [0291], [0440]), in the printing head, of the faulty nozzle detected by the detector; a cause of a discharging fault of the nozzle; and an option of cleaning performed by the cleaning unit (Matsumoto, [0291]).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the control unit checks the faulty nozzle information against the cause data to select cleaning, and causes the selected cleaning to be displayed as the option (Matsumoto, [0291], [0440]).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the control unit checks the faulty nozzle information against the cause data to select cleaning (Matsumoto, see figs. 26, 40), and causes a plurality of pieces of cleaning including the selected cleaning to be displayed as the option (Matsumoto, [0291], [0440], see figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto in view of Ishihara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detector performs the faulty-nozzle detecting process before and after the cleaning unit performs cleaning, and the control unit causes the display unit to display the faulty nozzle information after cleaning is performed (Matsumoto, Note that cleaning occurs any number of times in the lifespan of a printer, and thus it can be said the detection and displaying are performed before and after cleaning any number of times).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights