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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 14, 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites, “an exhaust opening which is provided in the cap and communicates with a recovery tank that recovers gas inside the cap (emphasis added).” However, claim 2 claims a “maintenance device” which is an apparatus. Note MPEP § 2114 states: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Therefore, it is suggested that the highlighted functional language of claim 2 be revised to recite structure configured to perform the function. Specifically, the Examiner suggests the following revision, “an exhaust opening which is provided in the cap and communicates with a recovery tank configured to recover gas inside the cap (emphasis added).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites, “An inkjet recording apparatus, comprising: the inkjet head (emphasis added).” As the limitations of the claim stand presently arranged, this recitation lacks antecedent basis. An example correction that would overcome the objection would read, “An inkjet recording apparatus, comprising: an inkjet head (emphasis added).”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira (US 20130010028 A1) in view of Lim (US 20050058265 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taira teaches a maintenance device, comprising: a cap to be attached to a nozzle surface of an inkjet head, the cap having a bottom portion and a side wall portion erected from an edge of the bottom portion toward a nozzle surface side (fig. 5; head 10, ejection face 10a, support cap unit 50, facing member 53, annular member 54; ¶[0044], [0048]); an air supply opening provided in the cap (fig. 5; valve 62, tank 64, tube 67; ¶[0056]-[0059]).
Taira fails to teach or fairly suggest the cap comprising a vent hole which is provided in the side wall portion of the cap and is opened to an atmosphere.
However, Lim teaches a cap for an inkjet printhead comprising a vent hole provided in the side wall portion of the cap and the vent hole is opened to an atmosphere (fig. 3; head cap 160, through holes 162a and 163a; ¶[0033]-[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lim into the apparatus of Taira in order to prevent pressure increases in the space of the cap caused by temperature changes that may occur while the printhead is capped (see Lim ¶[0012]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Taira teaches an inkjet recording apparatus, comprising: the inkjet head (fig. 1; printer 1, head 10, cap unit 50; ¶[0026]-[0031]), and Taira as modified by Lim teaches the maintenance device according to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Lim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nukui et al. (US 20120206537 A1), hereinafter Nukui.
Regarding claim 3, Taira as modified by Lim teaches the maintenance device according to claim 1. However, Taira and Lim both fail to teach or fairly suggest a suppression member which is provided at least between the air supply opening and the nozzle surface and has a first gap with respect to the air supply opening and a second gap with respect to the nozzle surface.
Nukui teaches a capping unit for an inkjet printhead comprising a suppression member which is provided at least between the air supply opening and the nozzle surface and has a first gap with respect to the air supply opening and a second gap with respect to the nozzle surface (figs. 10-11; ejection surface 10a, guide members 262a, cap 340, opening 351a; ¶[0074]-[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the suppression member of Nukui into the maintenance device of Taira as modified by Lim in order to provide airflow of humidified air that passes along the entire length of the ejection surface to provide uniform humidification.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira in view of Lim and Nukui as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tanda (US 20140210903 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Taira in view of Lim and Nukui teaches the maintenance device according to claim 3. However, Taira in view of Lim and Nukui fails to teach or fairly suggest the suppression member is formed of a resin.
Tanda teaches that a capping unit for an inkjet printhead wherein the components of the capping unit are formed of resin are well known in the art (fig. 6; cap main body 362; ¶[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the resin material of Tanda into the maintenance device of Taira as modified by Lim and Nukui in order to provide structures with desired elasticity and deterioration resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is allowed, despite outstanding minor formal matters.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the maintenance device of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, an exhaust opening which is provided in the cap and communicates with a recovery tank that recovers gas inside the cap, wherein the vent hole is provided more on a downstream side than the exhaust opening in a direction that is directed from a side of the air supply opening toward a side of the exhaust opening.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-5 of Remarks, filed July 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Taira (US 20130010028 A1) and Lim (US 20050058265 A1).
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 THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM EST.
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 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights