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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 22 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1-15 have been amended and examined as such.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa (US 2010/0277523 A1) in view of ARNOLD et al. (DE 10 2020 105 962 A1) and further in view of Herre et al. (US 2011/0262622 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, Nishikawa teaches a liquid discharge system comprising: a first head including a first nozzle, from which a liquid is to be discharged, on a first nozzle face oriented in a first direction; a second head including a second nozzle, from which a liquid is to be discharged, on a second nozzle face oriented in a second direction different from the first direction (Nishikawa – Page 3, Paragraph 48; Page 6, Paragraph 79; Figure 1, Reference #16 & #72x; Figure 2, Reference #150 & #151; and Figure 4, Reference #150A, each shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
446
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
314
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 1, while Nishikawa certainly implies a head holder holding the first head and the second head, ARNOLD et al. specifically teaches a holder holding multiple heads [i.e. nozzle bar comprising at least two heads] (ARNOLD et al. – Figure 1, Reference #4 & #8, shown below) and Herre et al. teaches a holder holding multiple heads, each individually controlled [i.e. swivelled] (Herre et al. – Page 8, Paragraph 159 and Figure 21, Reference #47 - #50 & Figure 24, Reference #58, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specify the head holder of Nishikawa with either the head holder of ARNOLD et al. or Herre et al. in an effort to provide application devices with a higher degree of efficiency while reducing the clean-up (Herre et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 45-53 and ARNOLD, Page 2, Paragraph 20).
PNG
media_image4.png
488
408
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
290
402
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
250
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 1, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. continues to teach first sealer to contact and seal the first nozzle face; a second sealer to contact and seal the second nozzle face (Nishikawa – Page 7, Paragraphs 104-105 and Figures 4, shown above and 6C, shown below and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraph 127; & Figure 8a, Reference #56, shown below); a first cleaner to clean the first nozzle face in a state where the first sealer has contacted and sealed the first nozzle face; and a second cleaner to clean the second nozzle face in a state where the second sealer has contacted and sealed the second nozzle face (Nishikawa – Page 7, Paragraphs 104-105 and Figures 4, shown above and 6C, shown below and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraphs 125-127; & Figure 8a, Reference #18, shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
208
308
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
462
440
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a first mover to relatively move the first nozzle face and the first sealer; and a second mover to relatively move the second nozzle face and the second sealer (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 106 & Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189 and ARNOLD et al. – Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128).
As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first mover includes a first drive source, and the second mover includes a second drive source different from the first drive source (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 106 & Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189 and ARNOLD et al. – Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128).
As related to further dependent claim 4, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first mover relatively move the first nozzle face and the first sealer in the first direction and the second mover relatively move the second nozzle face and the second sealer in the second direction different from the first direction (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 106 & Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189 and ARNOLD et al. – Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128).
As related to further dependent claim 5, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a driver driven by air; and the driver is coupled to at least one of the first mover or the second mover (ARNOLD et al. – Page 10, Paragraph 113, Page11, Paragraphs 119-120, Page 27, Paragraph 240 and Herre et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 3-4, Page 2, Paragraph 47, & Page 4, Paragraph 84).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a robot to move the head holder, wherein the robot is coupled to at least one of the first mover or the second mover (Herre et al. – Figure 2, shown below & Figures 22 & 24, shown above).
PNG
media_image9.png
494
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 7, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first nozzle face has a first area; the second nozzle face has a second area smaller than the first area (Herre et al. – Figures 17, 19, & 21, shown below); the first sealer is pressed against the first nozzle face with a first force; and the second sealer is pressed against the second nozzle face with a second force smaller than the first force (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 106; Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189; & Figures 4, shown above & 6C, shown above and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128; & Figure 8a, Reference #56, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 8, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the second sealer starts contacting and sealing the second nozzle face after the first sealer has contacted and sealed the first nozzle face (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 107; Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189; & Figures 4, shown above & 6C, shown above and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128; & Figure 8a, Reference #56, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first sealer includes an elastic to change an inclination of the first sealer according to an inclination of the first nozzle face (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 107; Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189; & Figures 4, shown above & 6C, shown above and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128; & Figure 8a, Reference #56, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 10, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the second sealer includes an elastic to change an inclination of the second sealer according to an inclination of the second nozzle face (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 107; Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189; & Figures 4, shown above & 6C, shown above and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128; & Figure 8a, Reference #56, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 11, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first head includes: an elastic; and a first contact member coupled to the elastic member, the first contact to contact the first sealer (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 107; Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189; & Figures 4, shown above & 6C, shown above and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128; & Figure 8a, Reference #56, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 12, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the second head includes: an elastic; and a second contact member coupled to the elastic member, the second contact to contact the first sealer (Nishikawa – Page 6, Paragraph 104 - Page 7, Paragraph 107; Page 12, Paragraphs 188-189; & Figures 4, shown above & 6C, shown above and ARNOLD et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 8-10; Page 12, Paragraphs 125-128; & Figure 8a, Reference #56, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 13, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a moving speed of each of the first mover and the second mover is variable [i.e. individually controlled as required] (Herre et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 106 & Page 8, Paragraphs 157-159 and Figures 22 & 24, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 14, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the moving speed of the first mover decreases as the first nozzle face approaches the first sealer (ARNOLD et al. – Page 23, Paragraphs 203-209 and Herre et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 106 & Page 8, Paragraphs 157-159 and Figures 22 & 24, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 15, the combination of Nishikawa, ARNOLD et al., and Herre et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the moving speed of the second mover decreases as the second nozzle face approaches the second sealer (ARNOLD et al. – Page 23, Paragraphs 203-209 and Herre et al. – Page 6, Paragraph 106 & Page 8, Paragraphs 157-159 and Figures 22 & 24, shown above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson et al. (US 4,864,966 A) teaches a liquid discharge system mounted to a robot arm. YORIMOTO et al. (US 2008/0225066 A1) teaches a liquid discharge system having maintenance and recovery mechanism to maintain nozzles using suction and moisturizing caps. BEIER et al. (US 2013/0257984 A1) teaches a system for printing on an objection using a printhead mounted on a robot arm. PITZ et al. (US 2014/0063096 A1) teaches print head arrays as well as other functional heads mounted to robot arms. MARTINS PINTO (US 2017/0203580 A1) teaches digital printing using a robotic arm. Baker et al. (US 10,293,601 B2) teaches a robot arm for large scale inkjet printing. Ingram et al. (US 10,532,561 B2) teaches ink jet printing using a robot assembly having print heads mounted thereon. Fritz et al. (US 11,203,030 B2) teaches a coating device using robot arms with nozzle arrays. Fritz et al. (US 11,504,735 B2) teaches painting and cleaning printheads, having multiple printheads on a single, individually controlled robotic mover.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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 (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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853