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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the list of three operations, wherein only one is required, is stated with “and” rather than “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 2, the term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With respect to Claim 5, the term “the pressure loss value exceeds 110% of its initial value” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pressure loss value exceeds 110% of its initial value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the value the Applicant attempts to claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant appears to be claiming a pressure value in relation to an initial value. However, the Examiner is not sure to what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention is since the written description fails to define the value of this “pressure loss value” or the “initial value” which could be used to determine/define 110% of the initial value. For example, Applicant has not provided a value with pressure units for the claimed pressure loss value nor the initial pressure loss value in either the claims or specifications. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the term “110% of its initial value”. Given the 112(b) rejection discussed above, and in an effort to advance prosecution of the application, the Examiner is interpreting the “exceeds 110% of its initial value” specified in claim 5 as follows: a pressure value.
Moreover, with respect to Claim 5 (which is dependent on Claim 4), the term “the pressure loss value” becomes indefinite if the option of “a fluid resistance value” is elected from the two options of measurement values claimed in Claim 4: “a fluid resistance value” or “a pressure loss value”. If a fluid resistance value is elected, then “the pressure loss value” claimed in Claim 5 has no basis and is insufficiently defined.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baldwin & Newell (WO 2024062227 A1; herein referred to as Baldwin). Note that the date of availability of Baldwin (20 September 2022), is applicable given this WIPO-published application designates the US (see MPEP 2154.01 & 2154.01(a) as well as Certificate of Availability on pdf p.2 of the attached version of Baldwin).
With respect to Claim 1, Baldwin teaches a liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) comprising:
a head tank that stores a liquid (i.e., “ink tank 117 for storing ink”; p. 28 l. 31-32; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2);
a liquid ejection head that ejects the liquid supplied from the head tank (p. 29 l. 1-3; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2);
a liquid supply path between the head tank and the liquid ejection head (p. 30 l. 11-12; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2, dashed arrows indicating path from “117” to “105”);
a liquid delivery device that delivers the liquid from the head tank to the liquid ejection head via the liquid supply path (p. 30 l. 11-16; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2);
a filter disposed in the liquid supply path (see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2);
pressure measurement devices respectively disposed upstream and downstream of the filter (i.e., a sensor which contains multiple pressure measurement devices, each sensing pressure in different locations, one upstream of the filter and the other downstream of the filter, so as to calculate the “pressure drop” across the filter; p. 12 l.30-31, p. 13 l. 1-2, p. 47, l. 2-4); and
circuitry configured to control the liquid delivery device to perform a liquid discharge operation to discharge the liquid in the head tank based on a result calculated from measurement values of the pressure measurement devices (i.e., “printer controller” used to adjust the liquid being discharged from the head tank “117” via the liquid delivery device “112” based on “pressure readings”; p. 47 l. 14-19; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 2, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1 (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21), wherein the liquid discharge operation is an operation to discharge the liquid near the filter (see discussion in section 112(b); p. 47 l. 14-19 annotated Baldwin Fig. 2). In an effort to advance prosecution of the application, the Examiner is interpreting “discharge the liquid near the filter” as the liquid from the head tank being discharged along a path so that the liquid may reach the filter.
With respect to Claim 4, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1 (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21), wherein the result calculated from the measurement values of the pressure measurement devices is a fluid resistance value or a pressure loss value (i.e., a sensor which contains multiple pressure measurement devices, each sensing pressure in different locations, one upstream of the filter and the other downstream of the filter, so as to calculate the “pressure drop” across the filter; p. 12 l.30-31, p. 13 l. 1-2, p. 47, l. 2-4).
With respect to Claim 5, note that (as discussed above) the claim is rejected under 112(b) given the term “the pressure loss value exceeds 110% of its initial value” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Given this 112(b) rejection, and in an effort to advance prosecution of the application, the Examiner is interpreting the “exceeds 110% of its initial value” specified in claim 5 as follows: a pressure value. Therefore, the overall claim is interpretated by the Examiner to be discussing a liquid discharge operation that is performing when a pressure value is obtained.
With respect to Claim 5, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) according to claim 4, wherein the liquid discharge operation is performed when the pressure loss value exceeds 110% of its initial value (i.e., the liquid discharge operation of discharging liquid is being performed/adjusted via comparison of a “pressure drop value” to a “predetermined value”, such as “to adjust the ink pump rate in dependence upon the pressure readings”; p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 1, elements “121”, “117”, & “filter 126” [note sensors are located upstream and downstream of “filter 126”, see p. 47 l. 2-4]). In other words, Baldwin teaches that the liquid discharge operation is actively performed/controlled in relation to an obtained pressure loss value.
With respect to Claim 6, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1 (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21), further comprising:
at least one of a suction pump (p. 31 l. 35 – p. 32 l. 17; p. 3 l. 11-14; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2) and a supply pump (p. 30 l. 11-16; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2),
the suction pump to suck the liquid in the head tank (p. 31 l. 35 – p. 32 l. 17; p. 3 l. 11-14; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2 and “supply line 175” containing liquid from the head tank being sucked by the suction pump “173”), and
the supply pump to supply a fresh liquid to the head tank (p. 29 l. 24-29; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2),
wherein the liquid discharge operation includes one of the following operations:
a liquid suction operation performed by the suction pump (p. 31 l. 35 – p. 32 l. 17 & p.47 l. 14-19; p. 3 l. 11-14; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2);
both the liquid suction operation performed by the suction pump and a liquid supply operation performed by the supply pump; and
an operation of ejecting the liquid from the liquid ejection head.
With respect to Claim 13, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1 (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21), wherein the filter is replaceable (p. 47 l. 6-8 & p. 50 l. 7-9).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Shibata (US20100079514A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1 (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21). Note that Baldwin teaches that this apparatus is capable of performing a liquid discharge operation (i.e., “printer controller” used to adjust the liquid being discharged from the head tank “117” via the liquid delivery device “112” based on “pressure readings”; p. 47 l. 14-19; see annotated Baldwin Fig. 2).
Baldwin is silent on wherein an amount of the liquid discharged by one time of the liquid discharge operation is 10 mL or less.
Shibata teaches wherein an amount of the liquid discharged by one time of the liquid discharge operation is 10 mL or less (i.e., “amount that is fed-out by one rotation of the supply pump 24” is 5 mL/rotation; Shibata: ¶0103 & Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid ejection apparatus taught by Baldwin to discharge 10 mL or less during one time of the liquid discharge operation, because standardizing the rate of 5 mL per rotation via a metering pump ensures “precision and reliability” for a continuous supply of ink “at a uniform flow rate” (Shibata: ¶0103 & Fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Thayer (US 9365063 B1).
With respect to Claim 7, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured (i.e., controller can be coupled with pressure sensor data about the pressure drop across a filter and configured to determine when the filter needs cleaning; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2). Note that, therefore, Baldwin teaches the concept of a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (i.e., cleaning the filter based on the pressure drop data; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2).
Baldwin is silent on wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the liquid delivery device to perform a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation.
Thayer teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the liquid delivery device to perform a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (i.e., cleaning the filter by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters aka “back-flushing” based on “an increase in pressure drop…across the filter” measured by “pressure sensor 66” which is attached upstream and downstream of the filter and are “in communication with a controller” that “signals…to backwash the filters 54”; Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). In other words, controlling the liquid delivery device to operate in the reverse direction of its typical flow (i.e., typically the direction of flowing through the filter towards to liquid ejection head), is performing the recovery operation of “backwashing”/“back-flushing”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to include additional capabilities, such as controlling the liquid delivery device to perform a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). This additional control capability, which does not require additional physical elements within the liquid ejection apparatus, enables the apparatus to “avoid total plugging of the filter system” because “the filter media are cleaned by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters” (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40).
Claim 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Thayer, and further in view of Friedman & Mekonen (US20220088930A1; herein referred to as “Friedman”).
With respect to Claim 8, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is further configured (i.e., controller can be coupled with pressure sensor data about the pressure drop across a filter and configured to determine when the filter needs cleaning; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2). Note that, therefore, Baldwin teaches the concept of a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (i.e., cleaning the filter based on the pressure drop data; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2).
Baldwin is silent on wherein the circuitry is further configured to repeatedly calculate the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value during the recovery operation.
Thayer teaches the recovery operation (i.e., cleaning the filter by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters aka “back-flushing” based on “an increase in pressure drop…across the filter” measured by “pressure sensor 66” which is attached upstream and downstream of the filter and are “in communication with a controller” that “signals…to backwash the filters 54”; Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). Note that this recovery operation uses circuitry to initiate unclogging a portion of a liquid ejection apparatus.
Friedman teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to repeatedly calculate the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value during the recovery operation(i.e., an unclogging operation can be controlled for a number of cycles, wherein during the operation, drops in pressure are repeatedly evaluated to determine if the circuitry should run an additional cycle (or stop the operation); Friedman: ¶0037). In other words, Friedman teaches a liquid ejection apparatus’s circuitry can be configured to control the duration/halting a recovery-type operation (i.e., the unclogging of an element in the apparatus) and that this control is utilizing repeated pressure loss value calculations. In this way, the circuitry taught by Baldwin can control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via a configuration taught by Friedman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to include additional capabilities, such as controlling the liquid delivery device to perform a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). This additional control capability, which does not require additional physical elements within the liquid ejection apparatus, enables the apparatus to “avoid total plugging of the filter system” because “the filter media are cleaned by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters” (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via this configuration taught by Friedman, because it provides a repeated dynamic, data-driven adjustment to the number of cycles required to perform the recovery operation (Friedman: ¶0037), thereby ensure the ideal number of cycles to perform the task.
With respect to Claim 9, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is further configured (i.e., controller can be coupled with pressure sensor data about the pressure drop across a filter and configured to determine when the filter needs cleaning; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2). Note that, therefore, Baldwin teaches the concept of a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (i.e., cleaning the filter based on the pressure drop data; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2).
Baldwin is silent on wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine whether to perform the (n+1)th recovery operation based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the nth recovery operation.
Thayer teaches the recovery operation (i.e., cleaning the filter by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters aka “back-flushing” based on “an increase in pressure drop…across the filter” measured by “pressure sensor 66” which is attached upstream and downstream of the filter and are “in communication with a controller” that “signals…to backwash the filters 54”; Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). Note that this recovery operation uses circuitry to initiate unclogging a portion of a liquid ejection apparatus.
Friedman teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine whether to perform the (n+1)th recovery operation based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the nth recovery operation (i.e., an unclogging operation can be controlled for a number of cycles, wherein running an additional cycle (or stopping the operation) is determined based on drops in pressure; Friedman: ¶0037). In other words, Friedman teaches a liquid ejection apparatus’s circuitry can be configured to control the duration/halting of (i.e., the unclogging of an element in the apparatus), after a given cycle (which can be defined as the nth cycle), and that this control is utilizing pressure loss value calculations. In this way, the circuitry taught by Baldwin can control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via a configuration taught by Friedman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to include additional capabilities, such as controlling the liquid delivery device to perform a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). This additional control capability, which does not require additional physical elements within the liquid ejection apparatus, enables the apparatus to “avoid total plugging of the filter system” because “the filter media are cleaned by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters” (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via this configuration taught by Friedman, because it provides a dynamic, data-driven adjustment to the number of cycles required to perform the recovery operation (Friedman: ¶0037), thereby ensure the ideal number of cycles to perform the task.
With respect to Claim 10, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured (i.e., controller can be coupled with pressure sensor data about the pressure drop across a filter and configured to determine when the filter needs cleaning; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2). Note that, therefore, Baldwin teaches the concept of a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (i.e., cleaning the filter based on the pressure drop data; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2).
Baldwin is silent on wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform the (n+1)th, recovery operation when recovery trend is observed in the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the nth recovery operation, and not to perform the (n+1)th recovery operation when recovery trend is not observed in the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the nth recovery operation.
Thayer teaches the recovery operation (i.e., cleaning the filter by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters aka “back-flushing” based on “an increase in pressure drop…across the filter” measured by “pressure sensor 66” which is attached upstream and downstream of the filter and are “in communication with a controller” that “signals…to backwash the filters 54”; Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). Note that this recovery operation uses circuitry to initiate unclogging a portion of a liquid ejection apparatus.
Friedman teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform the (n+1)th, recovery operation when recovery trend is observed in the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the nth recovery operation, and not to perform the (n+1)th recovery operation when recovery trend is not observed in the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the nth recovery operation (i.e., an unclogging operation can be controlled for a number of cycles, wherein running an additional cycle (or stopping the operation) is determined based on drops in pressure; Friedman: ¶0037). In other words, Friedman teaches a liquid ejection apparatus’s circuitry can be configured to control the duration/halting a recovery-type operation (i.e., the unclogging of an element in the apparatus), after a given cycle (which can be defined as the nth cycle), and that this control is utilizing pressure loss value calculations. In this way, the circuitry taught by Baldwin can control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via a configuration taught by Friedman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to include additional capabilities, such as controlling the liquid delivery device to perform a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). This additional control capability, which does not require additional physical elements within the liquid ejection apparatus, enables the apparatus to “avoid total plugging of the filter system” because “the filter media are cleaned by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters” (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via this configuration taught by Friedman, because it provides a dynamic, data-driven adjustment to the number of cycles required to perform the recovery operation (Friedman: ¶0037), thereby ensure the ideal number of cycles to perform the task.
With respect to Claim 11, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured (i.e., controller can be coupled with pressure sensor data about the pressure drop across a filter and configured to determine when the filter needs cleaning; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2). Note that, therefore, Baldwin teaches the concept of a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (i.e., cleaning the filter based on the pressure drop data; Baldwin: p. 13 l. 1-10, p. 47 l. 6-18, & Fig. 2).
Baldwin is silent on wherein the circuitry is further configured to terminate the recovery operation when the number of times the recovery operation is repeated reaches a predetermined number.
Thayer teaches the recovery operation (i.e., cleaning the filter by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters aka “back-flushing” based on “an increase in pressure drop…across the filter” measured by “pressure sensor 66” which is attached upstream and downstream of the filter and are “in communication with a controller” that “signals…to backwash the filters 54”; Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). Note that this recovery operation uses circuitry to initiate unclogging a portion of a liquid ejection apparatus.
Friedman teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to terminate the recovery operation when the number of times the recovery operation is repeated reaches a predetermined number (i.e., an unclogging operation can be controlled to run with “a predetermined recycling time” of the “cleaning cycle(s)” or can add additional configurations to extend that predetermined number of cycles or to cause early termination; Friedman: ¶0036-0037). In other words, Friedman teaches a liquid ejection apparatus’s circuitry can be configured to control the duration/halting of a recovery-type operation (i.e., the unclogging of an element in the apparatus) and that this control can be based on a predetermined number of cycles exclusively (whereas additional optional configurations can adjust that default setting if desired). In this way, the circuitry taught by Baldwin can control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via a configuration taught by Friedman.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to include additional capabilities, such as controlling the liquid delivery device to perform a recovery operation to recover the filter from clogging based on the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value calculated after the liquid discharge operation (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40; col. 8, l. 16-37). This additional control capability, which does not require additional physical elements within the liquid ejection apparatus, enables the apparatus to “avoid total plugging of the filter system” because “the filter media are cleaned by reversing the flow of fluid through the filters” (Thayer: col. 4, l. 32-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance the circuitry taught by Baldwin to control the recovery operation taught by Thayer (i.e., backwashing the filter) via this configuration taught by Friedman, because it provides a consistent (default) number of cycles (Friedman: ¶0036-0037) with which to perform the recovery operation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Friedman.
With respect to Claim 12, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) according to claim 4, further comprising:
a cleaning device that cleans the liquid ejection head (i.e., “solvent supply line” for cleaning printheads; Baldwin: p. 30 l. 33-35)
Baldwin is silent on a cleaning device that cleans the liquid ejection head, wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value at the same time as regular maintenance performed by the cleaning device.
Friedman teaches a cleaning device that cleans the liquid ejection head (i.e., “computerized system “10” [aka “jig”/”jig assembly”] for unclogging the ink-jet print head’s nozzle plate”; Friedman: ¶0029, ¶0040-0041, Abstract, & Fig. 1), wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate the fluid resistance value or the pressure loss value at the same time as regular maintenance performed by the cleaning device (i.e., “unclogging sequence” of unclogging nozzles in ink jet print head while a central processing module [CPM] is “monitoring the pressure drop in the first pressure gauge”; Friedman: ¶0036, ¶0007, & Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enhance Baldwin’s liquid ejection apparatus’s (i.e., “inkjet printer 101”; p. 28 l. 21) cleaning device (i.e., “solvent supply line” for cleaning printheads; Baldwin: p. 30 l. 33-35) by replacing it with the computerized system/jig “10” taught by Friedman, as this system/jig has a sensor-based control method that “can be programmed to operate upon receiving various signals indicating clogged nozzle plate and/or as a routine maintenance operating procedure” while being a “self-contained and detachable” assembly/system (Friedman: Abstract; ¶0029, ¶0040-0041; ¶0036, ¶0007, & Fig. 1). In other words, Friedman teaches an enhanced cleaning device that operates dynamically, in a space-saving format, to clean/maintain the liquid ejection head.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Saito et al. (US 20130253106 A1; herein referred to as “Saito”).
With respect to Claim 14, Baldwin teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein
the liquid includes a coloring material (i.e., “pigmented ink”; Baldwin: p. 2 l. 24 – p. 3 l. 9, an organic solvent (Baldwin: p. 2 l. 22-24), and a resin (Baldwin: p. 7 l. 8-11),
Baldwin is silent on and solid contents of the coloring material and the resin account for 15% by mass or more of the liquid.
Saito teaches and solid contents of the coloring material and the resin account for 15% by mass or more of the liquid (i.e., “Example 1” with solid contents of the coloring material and the resin of 21.2% by mass of the liquid; Saito: ¶0032, Table 1, Example 1). Saito teaches an ink composed of a coloring material with a solid concentration of 10% by mass of the liquid (i.e., “titanium dioxide” at 50% total mass of the ink, with a solid concentration of 20% by mass of the coloring material; 50% x 20% = 10%). Saito also teaches an ink composed of a resin with a solid concentration of 11.2% by mass of the liquid (i.e., “Urethane resin A” at 28% total mass of the ink, with a solid concentration of 40% by mass of the resin; 28% x 40% = 11.2%). Therefore, Saito teaches solid contents of the coloring material and the resin totals 21.2% by mass of the liquid (10% + 11.2% = 21.2%), which is equal to or greater than 15%. Also note that Saito teaches the use of organic solvents within this ink (Saito: ¶0099, Table 1, Example 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the Example 1 ink taught by Saito as the liquid ejected by the liquid ejection apparatus taught by Baldwin, because the liquid composition taught by Saito is “an ink composition for ink jet textile printing, the ink composition exhibiting satisfactory long-term stability and imparting satisfactory abrasion resistance and flexibility to printed fabric” (Saito: ¶0011).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Murayama et al. (US20180093491A1) teaches: A liquid ejecting apparatus includes a liquid ejecting section from which liquid is ejected. A return passage has a first end connected to a supply passage at a first location and a second end connected to the supply passage at a second location. The second location is positioned closer to the liquid ejecting section than the first location. The return passage and the supply passage constitute a circulating passage. A pump can cause fluid to flow through the circulating passage. A replaceable filter unit is a portion of the return passage. A discharge passage through which the fluid is discharged to the outside is connected to the return passage. An inflow controller can suppress external fluid from entering the discharge passage (Murayama et al.: Abstract & Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 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, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights