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 .
This office action is in response to applicants arguments dated 27 August 2026. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2023-205896 was received on 07 January 2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03 December 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga et al. (US PGPub 2019/0299618 A1), hereinafter Fukunaga, in view of Tamarez Gomez et al. (US 9,162,465 B1), hereinafter Tamarez.
With regard to Claim 1, Fukunaga discloses an inkjet recording apparatus (Fig. 1; ¶0033) comprising:
a plurality of inkjet heads (Fig. 1; inkjet printheads 250; Col. 6);
a blade unit which slides from a wiping start position to a wiping end position to remove adhered material from nozzle surfaces of the inkjet heads (¶0060-0066; Figs. 7, 10-13, wipe unit 19);
a closing member which closes a gap between the inkjet heads (Figs. 2-3, 5; head housing 10; ¶0041);
a surrounding member which surrounds the blade unit, supports the blade unit relatively so as to be movable from the wiping start position to the wiping end position, (Figs. 7, 10-13; carriage 80 and rack 82 having collecting tray 44 and wipe unit 19; Figs. 13, 17; ¶0068) and is opened toward the inkjet heads (¶0083-0085 Figs. 12-13, 17); and
a housing device (Figs. 11-13; carriage 80 and Fig. 1, housing 1) which houses the nozzle surfaces in a space formed by the closing member and the surrounding member when the blade unit is moved from the wiping start position to the wiping end position (Figs. 1, 11-13; ¶0083-0090).
Fukunaga further discloses a cleaning liquid as part of a recovery operation supplied to the inkjet heads (¶0100), however does not explicitly disclose a cleaning liquid supply device which supplies a cleaning liquid to the inkjet heads, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a cleaning liquid supply device is needed to supply a cleaning liquid to the inkjet heads, since the cleaning liquid must be supplied in some manner.
Regardless, the secondary reference of Tamarez Gomez discloses a cleaning liquid supply device (Abstract) which supplies a cleaning liquid to the inkjet heads (Col. 6, Lines 23-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cleaning liquid supply device of Tamarez, with the cleaning liquid and inkjet printer of Fukunaga, in order to supply the cleaning liquid to the printheads, to facilitate removal of the remaining purged ink from the heads, as taught by Tamarez (Abstract).
With regard to Claim 2, Fukunaga further discloses wherein the closing member is formed integrally with the inkjet heads (Figs. 2-3, 5; head housing 10; ¶0041), and the housing device (¶0053; Figs. 11-12) brings the surrounding member (wipe unit 19 and tray 44; ¶0062) into contact with the closing member by moving the surrounding member or the closing member to form the space (¶0066; 0081-0087; ¶0062).
With regard to Claim 3, Fukunaga further discloses wherein the closing member has through-holes into which the inkjet heads are fitted (Figs. 2-3, 5), and the nozzle surfaces of the inkjet heads fitted into the through-holes are exposed to the surrounding member (Figs. 2-3, 5; ¶0041).
With regard to Claim 5, Fukunaga further discloses wherein the housing device (Figs. 11-13; carriage 80 and Fig. 1, housing 1) houses the nozzle surfaces (Fig. 2; nozzles 18) in a period when an image forming operation by the inkjet heads is not performed (Figs. 1, 11-13; ¶0083-0090).
With regard to Claim 6, Fukunaga further discloses wherein the cleaning liquid supply device supplies the cleaning liquid in a period when an image forming operation by the inkjet heads is not performed (¶0100, cleaning liquid may be used during recovery operation).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga, in view of Tamarez, and further in view of Nakano et al. (US PGPub 2023/0115621 A1), hereinafter Nakano.
With regard to Claim 4, Fukunaga further discloses a cleaning liquid for recovery of the recording heads, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cleaning liquid supply device ejects or sprays the cleaning liquid to the nozzle surfaces.
The tertiary reference of Nakano discloses wherein the cleaning liquid supply device ejects or sprays the cleaning liquid to the nozzle surfaces (¶0053, 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spraying of cleaning liquid to the nozzle surfaces of Nakano, with the combination of Fukunaga-Tamarez, in order to wet wipe the nozzle surface, as taught by Nakano (¶0071-0073).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga, in view of Tamarez, and further in view of Andrews et al. (US PGPub 2022/0258236 A1), hereinafter Andrews.
With regard to Claim 7, Fukunaga-Tamarez does not explicitly disclose wherein the cleaning liquid supply device includes a heater which heats the cleaning liquid.
The tertiary reference of Andrews discloses wherein the cleaning liquid supply device includes a heater which heats the cleaning liquid (¶0158).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the heater of Andrews, with the combination of Fukunaga-Tamarez, in order to dissolve precipitant and other debris deposited on the print head, as taught by Andrews (¶0186).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 27 August 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection applied to the claims of this office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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 Rodriguez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
