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 09/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka US 20190308417 A1 in view of Okeguchi US 20220063278 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tomioka teaches a cap device that is displaceable relative to an ink
ejector capable of ejecting ink from an ink ejection port, and capable of blocking the ink ejection port, the cap device (cap mechanism 9 is displaceable relative to a head 3 that is capable of ejecting ink through the ejection port protrusion 22c; Figs. 3 and 4) comprising:
a casing body including a casing bottom portion and a casing wall portion extending from the casing bottom portion, a top surface of the casing body being open (cap body 12 includes a cap bottom portion on cap holder 22 and the side wall portion 22b extends from it while the top is open for another assembly; Figs. 3 and 4);
a cap assembly integrally supported by the casing body, and including a cap support and a cap body supported by the cap support and capable of covering the ink ejection port (cap mechanism 9 is mainly supported by the cap body 12, and includes the cap support being the cap holder 22 and cap 21 are capable of covering the head 3 protrusions 22c; Figs. 3 and 4); and
an engaging portion to allow the casing body to be attached to and detached from a cap device mounting portion (the engaging piece 22h on the cap body 12 allows it to attach and detach from the first case body 13 by snap fit; Fig. 4; Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 2, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 1, further comprising:
a biasing structure stored in the casing body, and capable of transmitting a biasing force to the cap assembly from the casing bottom portion toward the top surface; wherein
the cap assembly is capable of being biased toward the ink ejector by the biasing structure (biasing member 17 in the cap mechanism 9 is capable of transmitting biasing force to the cap mechanism 9 from the bottom towards the top where the bias is towards the head 3; Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0011, 0029, 0048 and 0052).
Regarding claim 3, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 2, wherein
the cap body has a substantially polygonal shape when viewed from above (the cap holder and all of the cap body 12 when viewed from the above has a quadrilateral shape which is a polygonal shape, Fig. 4); and
the biasing structure is provided at a portion corresponding to each corner of the cap body (the biasing member 17 is a compression spring that puts biasing force on each of the corners of the first case body 13 and goes up to the head 3; Fig. 3; Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 4, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 2.
Tomioka fails to teach wherein the cap assembly is slidable in a substantially horizontal direction from a standby position where the cap assembly is separated from the ink ejector to a capping position where the cap assembly blocks the ink ejection port, and is biased in a direction of the standby position when the cap assembly is located at the capping position.
However, Okeguchi teaches the cap device (head cap 600; Figs. 4 and 5) according to claim 2, wherein the cap assembly is slidable in a substantially horizontal direction from a standby position where the cap assembly is separated from the ink ejector to a capping position where the cap assembly blocks the ink ejection port, and is biased in a direction of the standby position when the cap assembly is located at the capping position (head cap 600 is attached to the head 20 to move on the guides 12 and 13 in the main scanning direction; Fig. 9A-9B; Paragraphs 0063-0067, the head cap 600 and the holder 602 can be attached to the guides 12 and 13 on their own from the carriage 11 and the head 20; Fig. 12; Paragraphs 0081-0086).
Tomioka and Okeguchi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving inkjet printers with head capping systems for maintenance. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap assembly to be movable and slidable along the horizontal direction This would have been done for the purpose of having the ability move the head while the cap is on the head protecting it.
Regarding claim 5, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 4.
Tomioka fails to teach wherein
the cap assembly further includes a guide protruding portion protruding from the cap support to be able to come into contact with the ink ejector;
the guide protruding portion includes a guide surface portion that is a surface capable of coming into contact with the ink ejector when the cap body and the ink ejector approach each other, and that is inclined with respect to a direction in which the cap assembly slides; and
in a state where the guide surface portion is in contact with the ink ejector, the cap body and the ink ejector further approach each other, so that the guide surface portion is pushed against the ink ejector, and is slidable in the substantially horizontal direction.
However, Okeguchi teaches the cap device (head cap 600; Figs. 4 and 5) according to claim 4, wherein
the cap assembly further includes a guide protruding portion protruding from the cap support to be able to come into contact with the ink ejector (head cap 600 includes guides 622 that protrude from the four corners of the holder 602 to be able to come into contact with the head 20; Figs. 4, 5, 9A, and 9B; Paragraph 0059);
the guide protruding portion includes a guide surface portion that is a surface capable of coming into contact with the ink ejector when the cap body and the ink ejector approach each other, and that is inclined with respect to a direction in which the cap assembly slides (the guides 622 have a surface that come into contact with the head 20 and the carriage 11, and slides on the guides 12 and 13 in the main scanning directions; Figs. 9A-9B); and
in a state where the guide surface portion is in contact with the ink ejector, the cap body and the ink ejector further approach each other, so that the guide surface portion is pushed against the ink ejector, and is slidable in the substantially horizontal direction (when the guides 622 are in contact with the head 20, the head cap 600 and head 20 get closer to create a seal and that is slidable along the guides 12 and 13 in the main scanning direction; Figs. 9A-9B; Paragraphs 0066-0067).
Tomioka and Okeguchi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving inkjet printers with head capping systems for maintenance. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap assembly to be movable and slidable along the horizontal direction This would have been done for the purpose of having the ability move the head while the cap is on the head protecting it and helping the guides helping the head cap seal onto the correct nozzles properly.
Regarding claim 6, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 2, wherein a tubular portion with a substantially tubular shape extends from the casing bottom portion, and the biasing structure including a coil spring is stored in the tubular portion (tube 15 is a tubular shape coming from the bottom of first case body 13, and the biasing member 17 which is a coil spring and is around the tube 15; Figs. 3-5; Paragraphs 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 8, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 1, wherein an outer periphery of the cap body is surrounded by a dam wall portion that extends to a position higher than an upper end of the cap body with reference to a state where the cap body is in close contact with the ink ejection port (the outer part of the cap holder 22 is surrounded by the side wall portion 22b that protrudes higher than the cap holder 22; Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 8, further comprising:
a cover that is supported by the casing body, that covers a portion of the top surface, and that restricts popping out of the cap assembly from the casing body (liquid attaching member 20 covers and is supported by the cap body 12, it covers the top portion and restricts the popping out by being the member in which it attaches; Figs. 3 and 4; Paragraph 0037); wherein
the dam wall portion is located in the cover (the side wall portion 22b is located with the liquid attaching member cover 20 when the cap body 12 is assembled together; Fig. 3-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka US 20190308417 A1 in view of Hayashi JP 2018126941 A.
Regarding claim 7, Tomioka teaches the cap device (cap mechanism 9; Fig. 3) according to claim 1, further comprising:
a tube connected from the cap assembly to the casing body to discharge the ink to an outside of the casing body such that the ink is suctioned from the ink ejection port (tube 15 is connected from the cap mechanism 9 by the first case body 13 to discharge the ink and allow the ink to be suctioned from the ejection port protrusion 22c; Figs. 3-5);
Tomioka fails to teach the tube includes a loop portion to which a biasing force is applied in a circumferential direction, and which is bent in a loop shape.
However, Hayashi teaches the cap device (cap unit 70, cap holding part 60; Figs. 5-8) according to claim 1, further comprising:
the tube includes a loop portion to which a biasing force is applied in a circumferential direction, and which is bent in a loop shape (looping tube portion 44 in the circumferential direction and is in loop shape, is connected to the cap holding part 60, cap unit 70 which connects to the head 20; Figs. 5-8).
Tomioka and Hayashi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving inkjet printers with capping mechanisms to help with maintenance. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the tube out of the cap to have a loop. This would have been done for the purpose of dampens pressure surges and preventing mechanical damage in the future use.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka US 20190308417 A1 in view of Shigeno US 20040041877 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Tomioka teaches the cap device according to claim 1.
Tomioka fails to teach wherein an ink absorber capable of absorbing the ink is provided inside the casing body.
However, Shigeno teaches the cap device according to claim 1, wherein an ink absorber capable of absorbing the ink is provided inside the casing body.
Tomioka and Shigeno are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving inkjet printers that have capping mechanisms for head maintenance. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the capping mechanism to include a cap ink absorber. This would have been done for the purpose of having a more efficient way for the ejected ink to be ejected as the ink will be absorbed (Paragraph 0044).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADMAN SAKIB BAKHT whose telephone number is (571)272-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, 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.
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.
/SADMAN SAKIB BAKHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights