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 3/28/25, 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 § 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 10-12 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. Specifically, Claim 10 recites, and its dependent Claims 11-12 incorporate, inter alia, “the inspection is performed based on a result of the inspection by the inspection unit”. It is unclear how the inspection can be performed based on its own result, making the Claims indefinite.
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) 1-9 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda et al. (U.S. 2018/0244094 A1).
Okuda et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a liquid discharge apparatus (100, §0082 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a discharge unit (2, §0082 and Fig. 1) configured to discharge a plurality of types of liquid,
a housing unit (“test pattern portion”, §0121) configured to house liquid discharged from the discharge unit in order to inspect a discharge state of the discharge unit (e.g. §0131, Table 3); and
a control unit (“control portion of the recording apparatus”, §0088) configured to control the discharge unit,
wherein the plurality of types of liquid include a first liquid and a reaction solution that reacts with the first liquid (§0006), and
the control unit controls the discharge unit, such that the reaction between the first liquid and the reaction solution is suppressed (§0006; please note that the delay during the drying step is regarded as reading on the limitation “the reaction between the first liquid and the reaction solution is suppressed”), in the inspection of the discharge state.
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the control unit controls the discharge unit, such that the reaction solution is discharged before the first liquid (§0006).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the control unit controls the discharge unit, such that predetermined processing is executed between each discharge of the first liquid and the reaction solution (§0006).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the first liquid includes a colorant that is aggregated by the reaction solution (§0025).
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the predetermined processing is processing for counting a predetermined time (§0121).
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the predetermined processing is discharge of the plurality of types of liquid onto a printing medium by the discharge unit (§0128).
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the housing unit further includes an absorbent (recording medium, §§89-0094, 0121) that absorbs the plurality of types of liquid.
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the discharge unit discharges the first liquid and the reaction solution from respectively different discharge ports (§0109).
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the reaction solution is a liquid containing a polyvalent metal salt (§§0032-0033). Please note also that this limitation amounts to a manner of operating the device. A manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Please see MPEP §2141 II.
Regarding Claim 16, wherein the housing unit is provided in the liquid discharge apparatus in such a manner as to be replaceable by a provider (§§89-0094, 0121).
Regarding independent Claim 17, a liquid discharge method comprising:
discharging a plurality of types of liquid (Abstract),
housing liquid discharged in the discharging (in “test pattern portion”, §0121) in order to inspect a discharge state of the discharging (e.g. §0131, Table 3); and
controlling the discharging (with “control portion of the recording apparatus”, §0088),
wherein the plurality of types of liquid include a first liquid and a reaction solution that reacts with the first liquid (Abstract), and
the discharging is controlled, such that the reaction solution is discharged before the first liquid, in the inspection of the discharge state (Abstract).
Regarding independent Claim 17, a liquid discharge method comprising:
discharging a plurality of types of liquid (Abstract),
housing liquid discharged in the discharging step (in “test pattern portion”, §0121) in order to inspect a discharge state of the discharging (e.g. §0131, Table 3); and
controlling the discharging (with “control portion of the recording apparatus”, §0088),
wherein the plurality of types of liquid include a first liquid and a reaction solution that reacts with the first liquid (Abstract), and
the discharging is controlled, such that predetermined processing is executed between each discharge of the first liquid and the reaction solution, in the inspection of the discharge state (Abstract).
Okuda et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 5, wherein, in a case where the plurality of types of liquid include a second liquid having a higher concentration of the colorant than the first liquid, the control unit controls the discharge unit, such that the first liquid is discharged before the second liquid. However, this limitation amounts to a manner of operating the device. A manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Please see MPEP §2141 II.
Regarding Claim 6, wherein, in a case where the plurality of types of liquid include a third liquid having a mixed viscosity when mixed with the reaction solution higher than the first liquid, the control unit controls the discharge unit, such that the first liquid is discharged before the third liquid. However, this limitation amounts to a manner of operating the device. A manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Please see MPEP §2141 II.
Regarding Claim 7, wherein, in a case where the reaction solution includes a first reaction solution and a second reaction solution that aggregates the colorant more than the first reaction solution, the control unit controls the discharge unit, such that the second reaction solution is discharged before the first reaction solution. However, this limitation amounts to a manner of operating the device. A manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Please see MPEP §2141 II.
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, 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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (U.S. 2018/0244094 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Unosawa et al. (U.S. 2006/0276901 A1).
Okuda et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claims 10-12, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which these Claims depend).
Regarding Claim 12, an acquisition unit (“control portion of the recording apparatus”, §0088) configured to acquire information of a position at which the discharge is performed during the inspection by the inspection unit, wherein the control unit performs control such that the discharge unit discharges the plurality of types of liquid at the position at which the inspection is performed by the inspection unit, based on the information of the position acquired by the acquisition unit, in the inspection of the discharge state.
Okuda et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 10, an inspection unit configured to inspect the discharge state of the discharge unit, and the inspection is performed based on a result of the inspection by the inspection unit.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the inspection unit is an optical sensor having a light emitting element and a light receiving element.
Regarding Claim 12, the information being information of a position at which the inspection is performed by the inspection unit.
Unosawa et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 10, an inspection unit (3, §0042 and Figs. 5-6) configured to inspect the discharge state of the discharge unit, and the inspection is performed based on a result of the inspection by the inspection unit. 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 inspection unit of Unosawa et al. to the liquid discharge apparatus of Okuda et al. to perform the inspection.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the inspection unit is an optical sensor (3, §0042 and Figs. 5-6) having a light emitting element (3a, §0042 and Fig. 6) and a light receiving element (3b, §0042 and Fig. 6). 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 optical sensor of Unosawa et al. to the liquid discharge apparatus of Okuda et al. to perform the inspection.
Regarding Claim 12, the information being information of a position at which the inspection is performed by the inspection unit (“discharge nozzles 81 in the first row are then driven sequentially in a one-by-one fashion”, §0043). 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 information of Unosawa et al. to the liquid discharge apparatus of Okuda et al. to enable performing the inspection of different discharge ports using the same sensor at different timing by knowing which port is being discharged at what time.
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