DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second liquid” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama (9,096,066) in view of LeFevre et al. (10,696,052).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8 and 9, Kamiyama teaches a printer, control method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising: a head (fig. 2, item 2) provided with a nozzle surface (fig. 2, item 21A) including a first nozzle and a second nozzle (fig. 2, items 17), and configured to discharge a first discharge liquid from the first nozzle and discharge a second discharge liquid from the second nozzle, the printer comprising:
a first container (fig. 1, item 3Bk) configured to store the first discharge liquid (fig. 1, black ink);
a first flow path ([0030]) connecting the first container to the first nozzle (fig. 2, 17Bk);
a second container (fig. 1, item 3Y) configured to store the second discharge liquid (fig. 1, yellow ink);
a second flow path ([0030]) connecting the second container to the second nozzle (fig. 2, 17Y);
a cap (fig. 4, item 12) configured to form a holding space (fig. 4, space between cap and nozzles) between the cap and the nozzle surface (fig. 4, item 21A) by surrounding the first nozzle and the second nozzle and contacting the nozzle surface (see fig. 4), the cap configured to hold, in the holding space, a holding liquid (fig. 4, L), the holding liquid including at least one of the first discharge liquid, the second discharge liquid, or a cleaning liquid ([0014]);
a processor (fig. 1, CONT); and
a memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor (note that a memory is necessarily present), instruct the processor to perform a process comprising:
Kamiyama does not teach first and second valves provided in the first and second flow paths or controlling one or both of the first valve and the second valve closed when a holding state and a non-circulating state are established, the holding state being a state in which the cap holds the holding liquid inside the holding space, the non-circulating state being a state in which neither a first circulating state nor a second circulating state is establish, the first circulating state being a state in which the first discharge liquid circulates via the first flow path, the second circulating state being a state in which the second discharge liquid circulates via the second flow path is established.
LeFevre teaches wherein a valve is placed in between a liquid container and a nozzle in a liquid flow path and wherein the valve is in a closed state in a holding state and a non-circulating state (LeFevre, see fig. 8, col. 6, lines 12-24, note valve 142 in flow path 140, and note that, unlike fig. 10, where the valve is open, the valve is closed in fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the valve disclosed by LeFevre to the flow paths of Kamiyama because doing so would allow for precise control of liquid from the container to the nozzle. Upon combination, the valves of all flow paths would be in closed states in the holding and non-circulating states.
Kamiyama in view of LeFevre does not teach wherein a color of the second liquid is the same as a color of the first discharge liquid. Nishikawa teaches wherein a single head with a single nozzle with nozzles for ejecting ink of a single color has two supply paths and two return paths (Nishikawa, see fig. 4, Note that each head 11 has two supply paths 35 and two return paths 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two supply paths and two return paths with each head, as disclosed by Nishikawa, in the device disclosed by Kamiyama in view of LeFevre because doing so would amount to combining a prior art circulation scheme with a prior art printhead to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa teaches the printer according to claim 1, wherein the computer-readable instructions stored in the memory further instruct the processor to perform processes comprising: controlling the cap to the holding state while both the first valve and the second valve are open, and closing one or both of the first valve and the second valve when the non-circulating state is established after the cap has been placed in the holding state (LeFevre, see figs. 6-10, Note that, in the holding state, the valve is both closed and opened).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano et al. (2023/0071122).
Regarding claim 2, Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa teaches the printer according to claim 1. Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa does not teach wherein the computer-readable instructions stored in the memory further instruct the processor to perform a process comprising: switching between a first valve state and a second valve state when both the holding state and the non-circulating state are established, the first valve state being a state in which the first valve is closed and the second valve is open, the second valve state being a state in which the first valve is open and the second valve is closed. Nakano teaches (Nakano, [0027], figs. 6, 9, Note that during standby, Nakano’s printhead is covered by a cap unit. Note that while the head is capped but before printing has begun, ink circulation for black ink or color inks or both can be executed. Note that, prior to the beginning of circulation, the valves would need to change positions, and if the first and second valves correspond to a black ink and a color ink, a first mode where the first valve was closed and the second valve was open and a second mode where the first valve was open and the second valve was closed would both be attained). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the selective circulation technique disclosed by Nakano to the device disclosed by Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa because doing so would allow for maintaining the ink circulated and fresh while reducing unnecessary circulation.
Regarding claim 3, Kamiyama in view of LeFevre, Nishikawa and Nakano teaches the printer according to claim 2, wherein the first container and the second container are each a cartridge; 1 the first valve and the second valve are each a diaphragm valve or a tube valve; and the computer-readable instructions stored in the memory further instruct the processor to perform processes comprising: maintaining the first valve state when it is detected that at least one of a connection between the first container and the first flow path, or a connection between the second container and the second flow path, has been disconnected, when both the holding state and the non-circulating state are established and the first valve state is established; and maintaining the second valve state when it is detected that at least one of the connection between first container and the first flow path, or the connection between second container and the second flow path, has been disconnected, when both the holding state and the non-circulating state are established and the second valve state is established (Nakano, [0054]-[0055], see fig. 6, Note cartridge 141. Note that the cartridge is necessarily detected as an amount of ink remaining in the cartridge is provided to the controller. Note that the first and second valves are held in closed states when it is determined that the first or second cartridges have been disconnected).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirosawa (5,220,345).
Regarding claim 5, Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa teaches the printer according to claim 1. Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa does not teach wherein the first valve is provided with a self-holding mechanism configured to close the first valve when energized and configured to hold the first valve closed when de-energized while the first valve is in a closed state, and the computer-readable instructions stored in the memory further instruct the processor to perform a process comprising: de-energizing the first valve while the first valve is in the closed state when both the holding state and the non-circulating state are established. Hirosawa teaches wherein the valves in its circulation system can be solenoid valves (Hirosawa, see fig. 2, Note solenoid valves 12A, 12B. Note that solenoid valves are energized to change state and then de-energized so the state remains, just as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use solenoid valves, as disclosed by Hirosawa, for the first and second valves disclosed by Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results. In other words, because LeFevre does not go into detail about what kind of valve is disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of skill to look to Hirosawa for information about a suitable type of valve for a liquid supply line upstream of a printhead.
Regarding claim 7, Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa teaches the printer according to claim 1. Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa does not teach
a third flow path connecting the first container to the first nozzle; a third valve provided in the third flow path; a fourth flow path connecting the second container to the second nozzle; a fourth valve provided in the fourth flow path; a first pump configured to cause the first discharge liquid to circulate via each of the first flow path and the third flow path; and a second pump configured to cause the second discharge liquid to circulate via each of the second flow path and the fourth flow path, wherein the computer-readable instructions stored in the memory further instruct the processor to perform processes comprising: establishing the first circulating state in which the first discharge liquid is circulated via each of the first flow path and the third flow path by driving the first pump while both the first valve and the third valve are open; controlling both the second valve and the fourth valve closed when both the holding state and the first circulating state are established; establishing the second circulating state in which the second discharge liquid is circulated via each of the second flow path and the fourth flow path by driving the second pump while both the second valve and the fourth valve are open; and controlling both the first valve and the third valve closed when both the holding state and the second circulating state are established.
Hirosawa teaches wherein a printhead has two flow paths, each flow path with a valve and a circulation path with a pump to circulate liquid via the two flow paths (Hirosawa, col. 4, lines 37-59, see fig. 2, Note first and third flow paths 9, 8 with first and third valves 10, 12A and pump 14 for circulating liquid from first container 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the circulation system disclosed by Hirosawa for the single flow path disclosed by Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa because doing so would allow for circulation of ink upstream of the printhead thereby ensuring ink supplied to the printhead was fresh.
Upon addition of the circulation system of Hirosawa to each flow path of Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa, the resultant device would meet all of the structural limitations of the third flow path, third valve, fourth flow path, fourth valve, first pump and second pump would be met.
Regarding the functional limitations regarding the processing, note that ink circulations for circulations of ink from different containers/different printheads occur individually, and thus, when one the circulation of ink in the first and third flow paths occurred, the circulation of inks in the second and fourth flow paths would not necessarily occur, and this functionality would meet all limitations of the processor.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirosawa and Nakano.
Regarding claim 4, Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa teaches the printer according to claim 1. Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa does not teach first and second sensors. Nakano teaches a first sensor configured to detect a first remaining amount of the first discharge liquid stored in the first container; and a second sensor configured to detect a second remaining amount of the second discharge liquid stored in the second container, and the computer-readable instructions stored in the memory further instruct the processor to perform processes comprising: controlling one or both of the first valve and the second valve closed when a difference between the first remaining amount detected by the first sensor and the second remaining amount detected by the second sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold value, when both the holding state and the non-circulating state are established, and controlling both the first valve and the second valve open when the difference between the first remaining amount detected by the first sensor and the second remaining amount detected by the second sensor is less than the predetermined threshold value, when both the holding state and the non-circulating state are established (Nakano, [0053], Note that, upon combination of Nakano with Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa would result in the claimed operation).
Hirosawa teaches wherein a printhead has two flow paths, each flow path with a valve and a circulation path with a pump to circulate liquid via the two flow paths and wherein the first valve and the second valve each open when de-energized and close when energized (Hirosawa, col. 4, lines 37-59, see fig. 2, Note first and third flow paths 9, 8 with first and third valves 10, 12A and pump 14 for circulating liquid from first container 16. Note that Hirosawa teaches solenoids that open when de-energized). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the circulation system disclosed by Hirosawa for the single flow path disclosed by Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa because doing so would allow for circulation of ink upstream of the printhead thereby ensuring ink supplied to the printhead was fresh.
Upon addition of the circulation system of Hirosawa to each flow path of Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa, the resultant device would meet all of the structural limitations of the third flow path, third valve, fourth flow path, fourth valve, first pump and second pump would be met.
Regarding the functional limitations regarding the processing, note that ink circulations for circulations of ink from different containers/different printheads occur individually, and thus, when one the circulation of ink in the first and third flow paths occurred, the circulation of inks in the second and fourth flow paths would not necessarily occur, and this functionality would meet all limitations of the processor.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiyama et al. (2016/0339713).
Regarding claim 10, Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa teaches the printer according to claim 1. Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa does not expressly teach wherein the first and second flow paths are flexible tubes, and the head is configured to move relative to the first and second containers. Nishiyama teaches this (Nishiyama, see fig. 4, Note flexible tubes connecting heads 16 and containers 22, 23, and note that flexible tubes necessarily mean the heads can move relative to the containers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use flexible tubes for the flow paths, as disclosed by Nishiyama, in the device disclosed by Kamiyama in view of LeFevre and Nishikawa because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights