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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 3/14/25, the requirements 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) are met.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on a Form PTO 1449 have been considered.
Specification
The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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) 1, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamitsu et al. (U.S. 2004/0051755 A1) in view of Sugimoto et al. (U.S. 2015/0251428 A1).
Kanamitsu et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a liquid ejecting device (100, §0109 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid ejecting section (3, 4, 8, §§0109-110 and Figs. 1-2) configured to eject a liquid to a medium; and
a liquid receiving section (12a, 12b, §0114 and Fig. 2) disposed at a position facing the liquid ejecting section across the medium, and configured to receive the liquid, wherein
the liquid ejecting section includes:
an ink head (100, §0109 and Fig. 1) configured to eject a pigment ink (§0009); and
the liquid receiving section is provided with:
a side surface portion, so as to extend upward, at both end portions along a longitudinal direction of a bottom (best seen in Fig. 3); and
no side surface portion at both end portions along a short- length direction of the bottom (best seen in Fig. 3; please note the absence of side surface portion at both end portions along a short- length direction of the bottom of each of the groove holes 12a and 12b).
Regarding Claim 3, a protrusion portion disposed at an end portion, in the longitudinal direction, of the bottom, the protrusion portion having a raised shape at an upper face side of the bottom and having, at a lower face side, a recessed shape corresponding to the raised shape (see the arrow added to Fig. 3 reproduced below).
Regarding Claim 8, a holding section (15, §0123 and Fig. 5) configured to detachably hold the liquid receiving section, wherein the holding section includes a support portion configured to receive the liquid receiving section and support the bottom and the side surface portion.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
407
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kanamitsu et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a treatment solution head configured to eject a treatment solution.
Sugimoto et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a treatment solution head configured to eject a treatment solution (§§0023-0024, 0047, 0049). 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 treatment solution head of Sugimoto et al. to the liquid ejecting device of Kanamitsu et al. to reduce clogging in case of using pigment-based ink.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-7 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 2 is the inclusion of the limitations of a liquid ejecting device including wherein the side surface portion of the liquid receiving section is tilted outward from the bottom, and the side surface portion of the liquid receiving section is held by the holding section so as to be deformed in a direction in which an angle of the tilting reduces. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination of that has not been found, taught or suggested by prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claims 4-5 is the inclusion of the limitations of a liquid ejecting device including the bottom of one of the plurality of unit liquid receiving sections is coupled to the bottom of another one of the plurality of unit liquid receiving sections in an overlapping state. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination of that has not been found, taught or suggested by prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claims 6-7 is the inclusion of the limitations of a liquid ejecting device including wherein a flange portion is provided at an upper end of the side surface portion. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination of that has not been found, taught or suggested by prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV whose telephone number is (571)270-7049. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Rodrigues 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.
/ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights