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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10 August 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (encompassing claims 5-11, as indicated by Applicant) in the reply filed on 10 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a search and examination of all the species in an application would not place a serious burden on the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because the support position on each species/embodiment is based on different criteria, thus requiring a separate search since prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other species. Also, paragraph 0162 of the disclosure labels controlling the maintenance position based on the liquid type information as a modification (i.e. a separate species/embodiment.)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 September 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation a “third support position” in lines 12 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites “a third support position” without reciting a first or a second support position, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. The rejection applies to Claims 6-11 due to their dependency on claim 5. Also, note a “fourth support position” in Claims 6, 9, and 10.
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2013/0307901) in view of Sato et al. (US 2022/0126613 – hereinafter Sato.)
Regarding claim 5,
Takahashi discloses a liquid discharge device [100 in fig. 1] comprising:
a head [11C/11M/11Y/11K (each including heads 17a-17c) in figs. 1-3] configured to discharge a liquid from a nozzle opening [18 in fig. 2] on a nozzle surface [F in figs. 4-6 and 15-24; paragraphs 0044-0047];
a wiper [35a-35c in figs. 8 and 15-24] configured to be brought into contact with the nozzle surface at a front, in a first direction [indicated by arrow A in figs. 17, 20 and 23-24], surface of the wiper and be movable relative to the head in the first direction [paragraph 0062; as seen in figs. 17, 20 and 23-24];
a support portion [31 in figs. 7-8 and 15-24] configured to support at least a rear, in the first direction, surface of the wiper [as seen in figs. 20-24; paragraph 0059];
a storage medium [not shown] configured to store liquid type information related to the liquid discharged by the head [implicit from the teachings in paragraph 0086; a storage medium to store the parameters listed in paragraph 0086 (i.e., “the material and thickness of the wiper 35c, the wettability of the surface of the wiper 35c, the viscosity of the ink droplet 63, and other factors” (emphasis added)) is necessary for the apparatus to perform its intended functions]; and
a controller [implicit and well-known that a controller is necessary for the apparatus to perform its intended functions] configured to:
acquire the liquid type information from the storage medium [implicit from paragraph 0086; acquiring the viscosity/composition of the ink droplet = acquiring the liquid type information];
determine, based on the liquid type information, a third support position which is a position of the support portion in the second direction [indicated by arrow C in figs. 21-23; also, see 112 Rejection above]; and
position the support portion at the determined third support position and move the wiper in the first direction relative to the head [paragraph 0086; as seen in figs.20-21.]
However, Takahashi fails to expressly disclose wherein the support portion is movable relative to the wiper in a second direction intersecting the nozzle surface and the first direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Sato discloses a liquid discharge device [100 in fig. 1] comprising:
a head [61 in fig. 1] configured to discharge a liquid from a nozzle opening on a nozzle surface [paragraph 0038];
a wiper [301a in figs. 3A-4A and 8A-9B] configured to be brought into contact with a surface [belt surface instead of a nozzle surface but the mechanism/teachings regarding the wiper’s movement still apply] at a front, in a first direction [indicated by arrow Y in fig. 3A-4A and 8A-10], surface of the wiper and be movable relative to the surface in the first direction [paragraph 0042; as seen in figs. 3B and 8A-8B];
a support portion [703 in figs. 9A-9B] configured to support at least a rear, in the first direction, surface of the wiper [as seen in figs. 9A-9B] and be movable relative to the wiper in a second direction [indicated by arrow A in figs. 9A-9B] intersecting the nozzle surface and the first direction [as seen in figs. 9A-9B, support portion 703 moves relative to the wiper in the movement direction A (see movement in relation to plate member 81g).]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maintenance/wiping unit in the Takahashi invention to include means for moving the support portion relative to the wiper in a second direction intersecting the nozzle surface and the first direction as taught by Sato for the purpose of providing an adjustable rigid support and a precise control of contact force according to various component parameters and desired performance, thus extending the lifespan of both the printhead and the wiper.
Regarding claim 6,
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi further discloses wherein the controller is configured to:
determine the third support position based on the liquid type information being first information [paragraph 0086];
determine, based on the liquid type information being second information different from the first information, the position of the support portion in the second direction to be a fourth support position farther from the nozzle surface than the third support position [paragraph 0086; the amount of warp (caused by the location of the wiper) will be adjusted to a different value according to the composition/type of ink]; and
position the support portion at the determined third support position or the fourth support position, and move the wiper relative to the head in the first direction [paragraph 0086; also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 7,
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi further discloses the liquid discharge device further comprising:
a platen [support frame 40 in fig. 7, which with carriage 31 forms wiping mechanism 30] configured to be able to face the head [as seen in figs. 15-19],
wherein the support portion is configured to move in the second direction without changing a distance between the head and the platen in the second direction [in the modified support portion as applied to the Sato invention.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claims 5 and 6, further reciting wherein the first information is information indicating that the liquid is a polymer-containing liquid, and wherein the second information is information indicating that the liquid is a polymer-free liquid.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Regarding claim 9-11,
These claims are considered to have allowable subject matter due to their dependency on claim 8.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights