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 .
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, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urakami et al. US 20170050444 A1.
Regarding claim 1,
A method for determining a state of a filter unit in an ink circuit of a printer (Figure 2, Item 246; Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal… A user can know that there is a possibility that the foreign substance removal filter 246 is clogged in an early stage”), the method comprising:
pumping ink from an ink reservoir (Figure 2, Item 241), through the filter unit (Figure 2, Item 246), into an ink container (Figure 2, Item 245) based on an initial fill level of said ink container (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 operates the liquid feeding pump 243 based on the detection data of liquid surface position detected by the second float sensor 245a such that a predetermined amount of ink is stored in the second sub tank 245”),
detecting at least one first fill level value in the ink container with a sensor unit, wherein the initial fill level is below the first fill level value (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 detects the stored amount in the second sub tank 245 after a predetermined time elapsed based on the detection data detected by the second float sensor 245a”),
pumping ink with an ink pump into the ink container until the first fill level value is reached (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 operates the liquid feeding pump 243 based on the detection data of liquid surface position detected by the second float sensor 245a such that a predetermined amount of ink is stored in the second sub tank 245”), so that at least a predetermined volume between the initial fill level and the first fill level value is filled (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal.” Note that the stored amount the stored amount corresponds to the first fill level value, so if the stored amount is given a predetermined value, then the volume between the initial fill level and the first fill level value is predetermined),
detecting a time of the activated ink pump until the first fill level value is reached (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 detects the stored amount in the second sub tank 245 after a predetermined time elapsed based on the detection data detected by the second float sensor 245a.” The time of activation is predetermined, thus is known to the controller unit),
determining a volumetric flow through the filter unit based on the predetermined volume and the detected time (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal.” By detecting the volume of liquid provided to the ink container over a predetermined time period, the volumetric flow is determined),
comparing the determined volumetric flow with a volumetric flow limit value (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal.” A predetermined change in volume, resulting in the predetermined amount, over the predetermined time provides the volumetric flow limit value. The controller unit is said to be able to detect when the volumetric flow is not normal, which is explained to be when the volumetric flow is different from the volumetric flow limit value),
wherein a filter state information is generated upon reaching or falling below the volumetric flow limit value (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal… A user can know that there is a possibility that the foreign substance removal filter 246 is clogged in an early stage”).
Regarding claim 3,
the sensor unit detects a second fill level value, and the initial fill level corresponds to the second fill level value (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 operates the liquid feeding pump 243 based on the detection data of liquid surface position detected by the second float sensor 245a such that a predetermined amount of ink is stored in the second sub tank 245”; This necessarily implies that the second float sensor detects the level of the liquid surface position at a level other than the level corresponding to the predetermined amount of ink before the controller unit operates the liquid feeding pump).
Regarding claim 4,
the initial fill level of the ink container is achieved by pumping ink from the ink container with the ink pump or an additional ink pump (Paragraph 0069, “The second sub tank 245 is connected to an inlet 240a of each printing head 24a, and ink is supplied to each printing head 24a in accordance with the amount of ink to be ejected from the nozzle”).
Regarding claim 6,
the ink pump is an electrically driven gear pump (Paragraph 0055, “A pump other than a diaphragm pump may be used as the liquid feeding pump 243. A variety of pumps which are each conventionally used as a liquid feeding pump for ink such as a tube pump and a gear pump can be applied”).
Regarding claim 9,
a warning notification is output upon reaching or falling below the limit value (Paragraph 0069, “In this case, the controller unit 40 may alarm a user by displaying that the liquid feeding is not normal on a display”).
Regarding claim 10,
A device for determining a state of a filter unit in an ink circuit of a printer (Figure 2, Item 246; Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal… A user can know that there is a possibility that the foreign substance removal filter 246 is clogged in an early stage”), the device comprising:
at least one ink pump to pump ink (Figure 2, Item 243),
an ink container to provide ink for print heads of the printer (Figure 2, Item 245),
an ink reservoir to provide ink (Figure 2, Item 241),
at least one filter unit to filter the ink (Figure 2, Item 246),
at least one sensor unit configured to detect at least one first fill level value in the ink container (Figure 2, Item 245a), wherein an initial fill level is below the first fill level value (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 operates the liquid feeding pump 243 based on the detection data of liquid surface position detected by the second float sensor 245a such that a predetermined amount of ink is stored in the second sub tank 245”),
a control unit operatively connected to the at least one ink pump and the at least one sensor unit (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 operates the liquid feeding pump 243 based on the detection data of liquid surface position detected by the second float sensor 245a such that a predetermined amount of ink is stored in the second sub tank 245”) and configured to:
activate the ink pump to pump ink from the ink reservoir, through the filter unit, into the ink container, starting from the initial fill level of said ink container, until the first fill level value is reached, so that at least a predetermined volume between the initial fill level and the first fill level value is pumped through the filter unit (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 operates the liquid feeding pump 243 based on the detection data of liquid surface position detected by the second float sensor 245a such that a predetermined amount of ink is stored in the second sub tank 245”), detect at least a time of the activated ink pump until the first fill level value is reached (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 detects the stored amount in the second sub tank 245 after a predetermined time elapsed based on the detection data detected by the second float sensor 245a.” The time of activation is predetermined, thus is known to the controller unit),
determine a volumetric flow through the filter unit, based on the predetermined volume and the detected time (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal.” By detecting the volume of liquid provided to the ink container over a predetermined time period, the volumetric flow is determined),
compare the determined volumetric flow with a volumetric flow limit value (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal.” A predetermined change in volume, resulting in the predetermined amount, over the predetermined time provides the volumetric flow limit value. The controller unit is said to be able to detect when the volumetric flow is not normal, which is explained to be when the volumetric flow is different from the volumetric flow limit value),
generate a filter state information at least upon reaching or falling below the volumetric flow limit value (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal… A user can know that there is a possibility that the foreign substance removal filter 246 is clogged in an early stage”).
Regarding claim 12,
the sensor unit detects a second fill level value, and the initial fill level corresponds to the second fill level value (Paragraph 0069, “The controller unit 40 operates the liquid feeding pump 243 based on the detection data of liquid surface position detected by the second float sensor 245a such that a predetermined amount of ink is stored in the second sub tank 245”; This necessarily implies that the second float sensor detects the level of the liquid surface position at a level other than the level corresponding to the predetermined amount of ink before the controller unit operates the liquid feeding pump).
Regarding claim 13,
the initial fill level of the ink container is achieved by pumping ink from the ink container with the ink pump or an additional ink pump (Paragraph 0069, “The second sub tank 245 is connected to an inlet 240a of each printing head 24a, and ink is supplied to each printing head 24a in accordance with the amount of ink to be ejected from the nozzle”).
Regarding claim 15,
the ink pump is an electrically driven gear pump (Paragraph 0055, “A pump other than a diaphragm pump may be used as the liquid feeding pump 243. A variety of pumps which are each conventionally used as a liquid feeding pump for ink such as a tube pump and a gear pump can be applied”).
Regarding claim 17,
a warning notification is output upon reaching or falling below the limit value (Paragraph 0069, “In this case, the controller unit 40 may alarm a user by displaying that the liquid feeding is not normal on a display”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakami et al. US 20170050444 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Sarkinen et al. US 20210138795 A1.
Regarding claim 2,
Urakami et al. does not disclose that the ink container is empty at the initial fill level.
However, Sarkinen et al. teaches an operation of an inkjet printer system where when a header tank is detected to be empty, a pump operates to fill the header tank from a supply bottle (Paragraph 0041, “In operation of the system 12 in FIGS. 2 and 3, and assuming the ink supply bottle 52 is present, if the header tank 44 is empty or otherwise needs to be refilled with ink, the supply pump 48 is operated to draw ink directly from the supply bottle 52 to fill the header tank 44”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Urakami et al. to have that the ink container is empty at the initial fill level, as the ink may be fully expended when replenished.
Regarding claim 11,
Urakami et al. does not disclose that the ink container is empty at the initial fill level.
However, Sarkinen et al. teaches an operation of an inkjet printer system where when a header tank is detected to be empty, a pump operates to fill the header tank from a supply bottle (Paragraph 0041, “In operation of the system 12 in FIGS. 2 and 3, and assuming the ink supply bottle 52 is present, if the header tank 44 is empty or otherwise needs to be refilled with ink, the supply pump 48 is operated to draw ink directly from the supply bottle 52 to fill the header tank 44”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Urakami et al. to have that the ink container is empty at the initial fill level, as the ink may be fully expended when replenished.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakami et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Reinders et al. US 20220324236 A1.
Regarding claim 5,
Urakami et al. does not disclose that the ink pump is activated with a control voltage so that a pump rotor is preloaded at rest and, given a sudden increase in the control voltage, the pump rotor drives the ink pump with a nominal rotation speed, and ink is thereby pumped at a constant delivery rate with the aid of the ink pump.
However, Reinders et al. teaches that an ink pump may be controlled with a control voltage, pre-stressing the pump without moving it by establishing a magnetic field (Paragraph 0050, “Furthermore, the ink pump 42 may be controlled with a control voltage so that a magnetic field is established in the electrical pump drive and the ink pump 42 is already pre-stressed without moving the drive shaft”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink pump of Urakami et al. to have that the ink pump would be activated with a control voltage so that the pump rotor is already preloaded at rest end to overcome mechanical play in the pump and avoid additional inaccuracies, as taught by Reinders et al. (Paragraph 0050, “The pre-stressing overcomes the existing mechanical play in the pump in order to thus avoid additional inaccuracies”).
Regarding claim 14,
Urakami et al. does not disclose that the ink pump is activated with a control voltage so that a pump rotor is preloaded at rest and, given a sudden increase in the control voltage, the pump rotor drives the ink pump with a nominal rotation speed, and ink is thereby pumped at a constant delivery rate with the aid of the ink pump.
However, Reinders et al. teaches that an ink pump may be controlled with a control voltage, pre-stressing the pump without moving it by establishing a magnetic field (Paragraph 0050, “Furthermore, the ink pump 42 may be controlled with a control voltage so that a magnetic field is established in the electrical pump drive and the ink pump 42 is already pre-stressed without moving the drive shaft”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink pump of Urakami et al. to have that the ink pump would be activated with a control voltage so that the pump rotor is already preloaded at rest end to overcome mechanical play in the pump and avoid additional inaccuracies, as taught by Reinders et al. (Paragraph 0050, “The pre-stressing overcomes the existing mechanical play in the pump in order to thus avoid additional inaccuracies”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakami et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa US 20250206031 A1.
Regarding claim 7,
Urakami et al. does not disclose that the method is implemented in at least one of a printing pause, every 1 to 2 days, or every 24 to 48 operating hours.
However, Nakagawa teaches that a filter diagnosis mode may be performed each day that a printer is operated before shutdown or after a printing job (Paragraph 0154, “For example, the diagnoser executes the diagnostic mode or the like before shutdown or the like after a job end in the inkjet printer 100 to acquire the filter degradation level. The diagnosis mode may be performed for each operation day of the ink jet printer…”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Urakami et al. to have that the method is implemented in at least one of a printing pause every one to two days so that a diagnose may be able to predict the failure time of the filter and recommend replacement of the filter when needed, as taught by Nakagawa (Paragraph 0153, “The diagnoser can predict the failure time of the filter 432 and recommend the replacement of the filter 432 to the user…”)
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urakami et al. US 20170050444 A1.
Regarding claim 8,
Urakami et al. does not disclose that a value in a range of from 60% to 80% of the volumetric flow with a new filter is preset as a limit value.
However, Urakami et al. does teach that the controller detects when a measured flow rate indicates that liquid feeding is “not normal” when compared to a predetermined flow rate, and thus alerts the user that the filter may be clogged (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal… A user can know that there is a possibility that the foreign substance removal filter 246 is clogged in an early stage”). MPEP 2144.05, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that a value in a range of from 60% to 80% of the volumetric flow with a new filter is preset as a limit value, as it would be obvious to describe a value in a range of from 60% to 80% of the volumetric flow with a new filter as a value outside of normal range.
Regarding claim 16,
Urakami et al. does not disclose that a value in a range of from 60% to 80% of the volumetric flow with a new filter is preset as a limit value.
However, Urakami et al. does teach that the controller detects when a measured flow rate indicates that liquid feeding is “not normal” when compared to a predetermined flow rate, and thus alerts the user that the filter may be clogged (Paragraph 0069, “When the stored amount is different from a predetermined amount, the controller unit 40 can detect that liquid feeding is not normal… A user can know that there is a possibility that the foreign substance removal filter 246 is clogged in an early stage”). MPEP 2144.05, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that a value in a range of from 60% to 80% of the volumetric flow with a new filter is preset as a limit value, as it would be obvious to describe a value in a range of from 60% to 80% of the volumetric flow with a new filter as a value outside of normal range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rami Alshoroogi whose telephone number is (571)272-8946. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm.
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 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.
/RAMI A ALSHOROOGI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights