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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS have been considered.
Priority
3. 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
4. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 08/21/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 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.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
7. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
8. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07€ and 714.13.
9. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
10. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent Nº 12,617,206 to Nie et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are essentially directed to the same subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP 2010-120294), in view of Hazeyama (US Pub. Nº 2012/0154474).
14. Regarding independent claim 1: Hayashi disclosed a maintenance device (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a cap ([0023], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 10) covering a nozzle surface ([0023], line 3; also see Fig. 2, reference 7c) of an inkjet head ([0019], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 7);
an air supply port provided in the cap ([0028], line 9; also see Fig. 2, reference 14); and
a plate-like suppression member provided between the nozzle surface and the air supply port ([0030], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 2, reference 70), having a first gap from the air supply port (Fig. 2, the gap between port 14 and the member 70) and a second gap from the nozzle surface (Fig. 2, the gap between member 70 and the nozzle forming surface 7c), and preventing humidity in the air flowed from the air supply port from directly being exposed to the nozzle surface ([0030], lines 1-3).
Hayashi is silent about supplying humidified air into the cap through the air supply port.
Hazeyama disclosed a maintenance device (Fig. 5), comprising a cap (Fig. 5, the combination of references 8a and 40) having an air supply port (Fig. 5, reference 51a) and configured to cover a nozzle opening surface of a head (Fig. 5, reference 10), and a mechanism for supplying humidified air into the cap through the air supply port ([0054], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 5, reference 50).
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 Hazeyama with those of Hayashi by providing a humidifying mechanism in the maintenance device of Hayashi in order to prevent thickening of the ink in the ejection openings when no printing is performed during extended amount of time as disclosed by Hazeyama in paragraph [0076].
15. Regarding claim 2: The combination of Hayashi and Hazeyama disclosed the maintenance device according to claim 1, wherein the cap includes an air discharge port (Hayashi [0026], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 13), and the suppression member is provided along a direction from a side of the air supply port to a side of the air discharge port (Hayashi Fig. 2; suppression member 70 extends along a direction from port 14 to port 13).
16. Regarding claim 6: The combination of Hayashi and Hazeyama disclosed an inkjet recording apparatus (Hayashi [0017], lines 1-2) comprising: the inkjet head (Hayashi Fig. 2, reference 7), and the maintenance device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
17. Claim 5 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP 2010-120294), in view of Hazeyama (US Pub. Nº 2012/0154474).
18. Regarding claim 5: Hayakawa et al. disclosed a maintenance device comprising:
a cap ([0023], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 10) covering a nozzle surface ([0023], line 3; also see Fig. 2, reference 7c) of an inkjet head ([0019], line 1; also see Fig. 2, reference 7);
an air supply port provided in the cap ([0028], line 9; also see Fig. 2, reference 14); and
a plate-like suppression member provided between the nozzle surface and the air supply port ([0030], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 2, reference 70), having a first gap from the air supply port (Fig. 2, the gap between port 14 and the member 70) and a second gap from the nozzle surface (Fig. 2, the gap between member 70 and the nozzle forming surface 7c), and preventing humidity in the air flowed from the air supply port from directly being exposed to the nozzle surface ([0030], lines 1-3), wherein the suppression member is made of resin ([0023], lines 4-5; it is commonly known in the art to us a polymer or resin material to achieve waterproofness).
Hayashi is silent about supplying humidified air into the cap through the air supply port.
Hazeyama disclosed a maintenance device (Fig. 5), comprising a cap (Fig. 5, the combination of references 8a and 40) having an air supply port (Fig. 5, reference 51a) and configured to cover a nozzle opening surface of a head (Fig. 5, reference 10), and a mechanism for supplying humidified air into the cap through the air supply port ([0054], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 5, reference 50).
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 Hazeyama with those of Hayashi by providing a humidifying mechanism in the maintenance device of Hayashi in order to prevent thickening of the ink in the ejection openings when no printing is performed during extended amount of time as disclosed by Hazeyama in paragraph [0076].
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 3 and 4 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, provided the double patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
20. 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).
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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