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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadomatsu et al (U.S. Pub. 2007/0013759)
Regarding claim 1, a liquid discharge apparatus comprising: a first discharge unit (12Y, 12M, 12C, 12K) having a first nozzle face having a first nozzle to discharge ink from the first nozzle onto an area of a recording medium to form an image on the recording medium (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0030-0032; 0051, 0070-0072, 0075)
A second discharge unit (12S) having a second nozzle face having a second nozzle to discharge a pretreatment liquid from the second nozzle to the area of the recording medium (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0051, 0070-0075)
A third discharge unit (12T) having a third nozzle face having a third nozzle to discharge a diluent from the third nozzle (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0051, 0070-0075)
Wherein the third nozzle face (12T) is disposed adjacent to the first nozzle face (12Y, 12M, 12C, 12K) and the second nozzle face (12S) (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 2, wherein the third discharge unit discharges the diluent to dilute at least one of the pretreatment liquid or the ink (Paragraph 0075)
Regarding claim 7, further comprising an irradiation unit (41) to emit ultraviolet light to the ink discharged on the recording medium to cure the ink (Paragraphs 0063-0064; Figure 2)
Regarding claim 16, wherein the first nozzle face and the third nozzle face are disposed on a same plane (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 17, wherein the second nozzle face and the third nozzle face are disposed on a same plane (Figure 2)
Regarding claim 18, wherein the pretreatment liquid and the diluent are transparent (Paragraphs 0075-0078)
Regarding claim 19, wherein the diluent includes at least one of a solvent contained in the pretreatment liquid or a solvent contained int eh pretreatment liquid or a solvent contained in the ink (Abstract; Paragraph 0156)
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadomatsu et al (U.S. Pub. 2007/0013759) in view of Sumikawa et al (U.S. Pub. 2015/0070422)
Regarding claim 6, Sumikawa discloses it is known in the art to use an ink with an organic solvent (Paragraph 0103)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sumikawa into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of producing a high-quality image at a high speed and preventing sticking of ink due to drying
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadomatsu et al (U.S. Pub. 2007/0013759) in view of Okeguchi (U.S. 2022/0063278)
Regarding claim 8, Okeguchi discloses a cap which holds a cleaning liquid; wherein the cap covers at least one of the discharge units with the cleaning liquid held in the cap (Paragraph 0069)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Okeguchi into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of preventing thickening and sticking of liquid in the nozzles of the discharge head
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadomatsu et al (U.S. Pub. 2007/0013759) in view of Yahiro (U.S. Pub. 2008/0238984)
Regarding claim 9, Yahiro discloses wherein the diluent includes water (Paragraph 0079)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yahiro into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of improving image fixing characteristics on the medium (Paragraph 0022)
Regarding claim 10, Yahiro discloses wherein the diluent includes a cleaning liquid including an organic solvent, a surfactant, and water (Paragraph 0079)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yahiro into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of improving image fixing characteristics on the medium (Paragraph 0022)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadomatsu et al (U.S. Pub. 2007/0013759) in view of Niimi (U.S. Pub. 2004/0187715)
Regarding claim 11, Niimi discloses it is known to discharge color inks and white ink onto the recording medium including cloth having a color other than white; and the discharge unit discharges the white ink onto an area of the recording medium and discharges the color ink to the area of the recording medium to which the white ink has been discharged (Paragraphs 0055, 0062-0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Niimi into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of allowing the inks of the color image formed onto the fabric to show good coloration
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadomatsu et al (U.S. Pub. 2007/0013759) in view of Evans et al (U.S. Pub. 2024/0100855)
Regarding claims 12-13, Evans discloses it is known to use a transfer system to discharge ink onto a transfer substrate including a non-permeable substrate from which the image is transferable to the transfer target including cloth (Abstract; Paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0062)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Evans into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of providing a less expensive and faster printing system process (Paragraph 0028)
Regarding claims 14-15, Kadomatsu discloses discharging the diluent onto the image and the discharge unit discharges the diluent to a portion of the image (Figure 2; Paragraphs 0051, 0070-0075)
Evans discloses it is known to use a transfer system to discharge ink onto a transfer substrate including a non-permeable substrate from which the image is transferable to the transfer target including cloth (Abstract; Paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0062)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Evans into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of reducing graininess of the recorded image and providing a less expensive and faster printing system process (Evans; Paragraph 0028)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadomatsu et al (U.S. Pub. 2007/0013759) in view of Ito (U.S. Pub. 2010/0033537)
Regarding claim 20, Ito discloses it is known in the art to form nozzles arrayed in rows to be in a staggered manner (Paragraph 0006)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ito into the device of Kadomatsu, for the purpose of improving the resolution
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
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 JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 September 23, 2026
