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 .
2. This office action is responsive to the application Nº 18/805,644 filed on August 15th, 2024 in which claims 1-27 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS have been considered.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
5. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 08/15/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kimura (US Pub. Nº 2005/0104925).
9. Regarding claim 1: Kimura disclosed a liquid discharge apparatus ([0024], line 1; also see Fig. 1, reference 1) comprising:
a head ([0029], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 15) having a nozzle surface ([0073], line 2; also see Fig. 2, reference 20a) in which a nozzle is opened ([0032], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 14);
a wiper configured to come into contact with the nozzle surface and move relative to the head ([0035], lines 1-4; also see Fig. 2, any of the wipers 22a-22c); and
a controller ([0027], line 6; also see Fig. 1, reference 16), wherein
the controller is configured to execute:
a viscosity determination process of determining viscosity of liquid adhering to the nozzle surface ([0060], lines 1-8; the determination of the time since the preceding wiping execution constitutes a determination of the viscosity of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface); and
a wiping process in which the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface and moves relative to the head ([0065], lines 1-3 also see [0035], lines 1-4), and
in a case in which the determined viscosity is lower than first viscosity indicating that the liquid is substantially solidified, a pressing pressure when the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface in the wiping process is set to be larger than a stress due to viscous friction of the liquid on the nozzle surface ([0060], lines 4-9; a pressing pressure that is larger than a stress due to viscous friction of the liquid on the nozzle surface is selected according to the viscosity level of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface, while the ink is not substantially solidified).
10. Regarding claim 7: Kimura disclosed the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the pressing pressure based on wiper information on the wiper ([0059], lines 9-16; the wiping pressure is selected based on wiper information (thickness, hardness and length)).
11. Claims 16, 19 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kimura (US Pub. Nº 2005/0104925).
12. Regarding independent claim 16: Kimura disclosed a wiping method comprising:
determining viscosity of liquid adhering to a nozzle surface of a head ([0060], lines 1-8; the determination of the time since the preceding wiping execution constitutes a determination of the viscosity of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface); and
wiping the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface by a wiper that comes into contact with the nozzle surface and moves relative to the head ([0065], lines 1-3 also see [0035], lines 1-4), wherein
in a case in which the determined viscosity is lower than first viscosity indicating that the liquid is substantially solidified, a pressing pressure when the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface in wiping is larger than a stress due to viscous friction of the liquid on the nozzle surface ([0060], lines 4-9; a pressing pressure that is larger than a stress due to viscous friction of the liquid on the nozzle surface is selected according to the viscosity level of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface, while the ink is not substantially solidified).
13. Regarding claim 19: Kimura disclosed the wiping method according to claim 16, wherein determining viscosity comprises: determining an evaporation rate of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface based on at least elapsed time from execution of wiping in which the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface and moves relative to the head ([0060], lines 4-9), liquid information on the liquid discharged by the head ([0062], lines 1-4), and environment information on an environment of the head ([0061], lines 1-4); and determining the viscosity of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface based on the determined evaporation rate ([0060], lines 4-8).
14. Regarding claim 22: Kimura disclosed the wiping method according to claim 16, further comprising determining the pressing pressure based on wiper information on the wiper ([0059], lines 9-16; the wiping pressure is selected based on wiper information (thickness, hardness and length)).
15. Regarding claim 23: Kimura disclosed the wiping method according to claim 19, wherein the adhesive force of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface is determined based on the determined evaporation rate ([0060], lines 1-8; the pressing pressure and the adhesive force are determined based on the evaporation time which is correlated with the evaporation rate).
16. Regarding claim 24: Kimura disclosed the wiping method according to claim 19, wherein the pressing pressure is increased as the elapsed time increases ([0060], lines 1-9).
17. Regarding claim 25: Kimura disclosed the wiping method according to claim 24, wherein the pressing pressure is increased by changing a position of the wiper relative to the nozzle surface in an up-down direction ([0042], lines 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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 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.
19. 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 of this title, 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.
20. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. Nº 2005/0104925), in view of Nagai et al. (US Pub. Nº 2002/0135650).
21. Regarding claim 11: Kimura disclosed the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the liquid is water-based ink ([0031], lines 3-4) comprising a pigment ([0031], line 4).
Kimura is silent about wherein the liquid is water-based ink comprising a pigment and a water-soluble organic solvent.
Nagai et al. disclosed a liquid discharge apparatus (Fig. 2), and a wiper for wiping a nozzle surface of the discharge head ([0177], lines 4-6; also see Fig. 2, reference 61), wherein the liquid is a water-based ink ([0050], line 2) comprising a pigment ([0050], line 1) and a water-soluble organic solvent ([0055], lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nagai et al. with those of Kimura by using the ink composition of Nagai et al. in the apparatus of Kimura in order to achieve excellent coloring property on plain paper, light stability and storage durability of the printing liquid as disclosed by Nagai et al. in paragraph [0016].
22. Regarding claim 12: The combination of Kimura and Nagai et al. disclosed the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the liquid further comprises a plurality of resin particles (Nagai et al. [0110], lines 8-12).
23. Regarding claim 13: The combination of Kimura and Nagai et al. disclosed the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a mass ratio of the water-soluble organic solvent to a solid component of the liquid (water-soluble organic solvent/solid component) is 1.0 or more (Nagai et al. [0156], lines 2-3, the solvent content is 25 to 93% and the solid content is 1 to 25%), and the water-soluble organic solvent comprises a solvent having a saturated vapor pressure of 20 Pa or less at 20°C (Nagai et al. [0055], lines 1-5 disclosed the same water-soluble solvent as disclosed in the specification of the instant application and the saturated vapor pressure is an intrinsic characteristic of the solvent).
24. Regarding claim 14: The combination of Kimura and Nagai et al. disclosed the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a mass ratio of the water-soluble organic solvent to a solid component in the liquid (water-soluble organic solvent/solid component) is 2.0 or more (Nagai et al. [0156], lines 2-3, the solvent content is 25 to 93% and the solid content is 1 to 25%), and when an aqueous solution having a content of the solid component of 10 wt% is prepared, conductivity of the aqueous solution is 5 mS/cm or less (Nagai et al. [0157], lines 1-3).
25. Regarding claim 15: The combination of Kimura and Nagai et al. disclosed the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 11, wherein a mass ratio of the water-soluble organic solvent to a solid component in the liquid (water-soluble organic solvent/solid component) is 2.0 or more (Nagai et al. [0156], lines 2-3, the solvent content is 25 to 93% and the solid content is 1 to 25%), the water-soluble organic solvent comprises a solvent having a saturated vapor pressure at 20°C of 20 Pa or less (Nagai et al. [0055], lines 1-5 disclosed the same water-soluble solvent as disclosed in the specification of the instant application and the saturated vapor pressure is an intrinsic characteristic of the solvent), and when an aqueous solution having a content of the solid component of 10 wt% is prepared, conductivity of the aqueous solution is 5 mS/cm or less (Nagai et al. [0157], lines 1-3).
26. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. Nº 2005/0104925), in view of Nagai et al. (US Pub. Nº 2002/0135650).
27. Regarding claim 26: Kimura disclosed the wiping method according to claim 16, wherein the liquid is water-based ink ([0031], lines 3-4) comprising a pigment ([0031], line 4).
Kimura is silent about wherein the liquid is water-based ink comprising a pigment and a water-soluble organic solvent.
Nagai et al. disclosed a liquid discharge apparatus (Fig. 2), and a wiper for wiping a nozzle surface of the discharge head ([0177], lines 4-6; also see Fig. 2, reference 61), wherein the liquid is a water-based ink ([0050], line 2) comprising a pigment ([0050], line 1) and a water-soluble organic solvent ([0055], lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nagai et al. with those of Kimura by using the ink composition of Nagai et al. in the apparatus of Kimura in order to achieve excellent coloring property on plain paper, light stability and storage durability of the printing liquid as disclosed by Nagai et al. in paragraph [0016].
28. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub. Nº 2005/0104925), in view of Nagai et al. (US Pub. Nº 2002/0135650).
29. Regarding independent claim 27: Kimura disclosed a wiping method, comprising:
wiping liquid adhering to a nozzle surface of a head with a wiper that comes into contact with the nozzle surface ([0065], lines 1-3 also see [0035], lines 1-4), wherein
a pressing pressure when the wiper comes into contact with the nozzle surface in wiping is larger than a stress due to viscous friction of the liquid ([0060], lines 4-9; a corresponding pressing pressure that is larger than a stress due to viscous friction of the liquid on the nozzle surface is selected), and
viscosity of the liquid on the nozzle surface is less than first viscosity indicating that the liquid is substantially solidified ([0060], lines 4-9; a pressing pressure that is larger than a stress due to viscous friction of the liquid on the nozzle surface is selected according to the viscosity level of the liquid adhering to the nozzle surface, while the ink is not substantially solidified).
Kimura is silent about the liquid comprises a pigment and a water-soluble organic solvent, having a mass ratio of the water-soluble organic solvent to a solid component in the liquid (water-soluble organic solvent/solid component) of 2.0 or more, the water-soluble organic solvent has a saturated vapor pressure of 20 Pa or less at 20°C, and when an aqueous solution having a content of the solid component of 10 wt% is prepared, conductivity of the aqueous solution is 5 mS/cm or less.
Nagai et al. disclosed a liquid discharge apparatus (Fig. 2), and a wiper for wiping a nozzle surface of the discharge head ([0177], lines 4-6; also see Fig. 2, reference 61), wherein the liquid comprises a pigment ([0050], line 1) and a water-soluble organic solvent ([0055], lines 1-2), having a mass ratio of the water-soluble organic solvent to a solid component in the liquid (water-soluble organic solvent/solid component) of 2.0 or more ([0156], lines 2-3, the solvent content is 25 to 93% and the solid content is 1 to 25%), the water-soluble organic solvent has a saturated vapor pressure of 20 Pa or less at 20°C ([0055], lines 1-5 disclosed the same water-soluble solvent as disclosed in the specification of the instant application and the saturated vapor pressure is an intrinsic characteristic of the solvent), and when an aqueous solution having a content of the solid component of 10 wt% is prepared, conductivity of the aqueous solution is 5 mS/cm or less ([0157], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nagai et al. with those of Kimura by using the ink composition of Nagai et al. in the apparatus of Kimura in order to achieve excellent coloring property on plain paper, light stability and storage durability of the printing liquid as disclosed by Nagai et al. in paragraph [0016].
Allowable Subject Matter
30. Claims 2-6, 8-10, 17-18 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
32. U.S. Patent application publication number 2017/0100938 to Muto disclosed a similar invention in Figs. 12 and 13.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
34. 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.
35. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at (571)272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
36. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights