DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 11/24/2025. Claims 1 and 4-22 are pending in the application. Claims 15-21 have been withdrawn and claims 1, 4-14, and 22 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
4. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
5. In the arguments presented on 9-10 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that primary reference Shimizu in Fig. 14 does not teach that the liquid ejection head 1 and cap 803 are housed in a partition wall 853 or that the liquid ejection head is housed in a space formed by an opening of the cap and the partition wall. Furthermore, the holding body 890 of Fig. 14 is not a sheet member having a bag shape nor house the liquid injection head and cap.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.9-10, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
6. The claim 13 feature of “high-pressure steam sterilization” will be interpreted as a sterilization cycle including, but not limited to, having parameters such as:
a temperature of 121°C (a pressure of atmospheric pressure + 0.1 MPa) for 15 minutes,
or a temperature of 134°C (a pressure of atmospheric pressure + 0.2 MPa) for 10 minutes ([0025]).
What is also included with this limitation is some form of steam-based sterilization within an autoclave.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4-14, and 22 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.
Claim 1 recites in lines 8-11, “housing the protection member and the liquid ejection head in a sheet member having a bag shape; or housing the liquid ejection head in a space formed by covering an opening portion of the protection member with a sheet member”.
It is unclear as to whether or not the second “a sheet member” recitation is the same sheet member as the first recitation, since both recite “a” instead of the second recitation instead reciting “the”.
The remaining claims fail to solve this issue and depend from claim 1.
In the 3rd to last line of the claim, the claim recites “wherein the sheet member”.
It is also unclear as to which sheet member out of the two configurations as disclosed in lines 8-11 is being used as the sheet member in the 3rd to last line of the claim.
The remaining claims fail to solve this issue and depend from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitations of independent claim 1 with particular attention to the limitations of “sterilizing a liquid ejection head including an ejection element substrate that has an ejection port surface in which an ejection port for ejecting a liquid is formed…covering at least the ejection port surface of the liquid ejection head with a protection member in a non-contact manner” in combination with the limitation of “housing the protection member and the liquid ejection head in a sheet member having a bag shape; or housing the liquid ejection head in a space formed by covering an opening portion of the protection member with a sheet member; and performing vapor sterilization on the assembly, wherein the sheet member is vapor permeable at least at one portion in such a manner as to block entry of bacteria into the liquid ejection head, in a state where the sheet member and the ejection port surface are out of contact with each other.”
The closest prior art to the claimed invention (Frost (US 20040228759 A1) – of record) is set forth above but does not teach or suggest a method of sterilizing a liquid ejection head including an ejection element substrate that has an ejection port surface in which an ejection port for ejecting a liquid is formed.
Frost teaches a method of sterilizing a syringe having a needle, wherein the syringe is packaged inside of a plastic tub that is wrapped with a Tyvek (polyester) packaging. One could argue that the needle of the syringe can be considered a “liquid ejection head”. However, a substrate is understood to be a base material in the printing arts. A syringe needle is a unitary tubular structure. It does not possess a “substrate” in the mechanical or electrical sense used in the art. A hollow tube is a conduit, not a substrate. To interpret the wall of a tube as an ejection element substrate would likely be considered an unreasonable stretch of the definition. Thus, a method of sterilizing a syringe would not read on the method of sterilizing a liquid ejection head as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, a liquid ejection head implies a device capable of generating the force to eject droplets via thermal or mechanical energy, whereas a needle is a passive component (i.e., a needle does not drive ejection, but is a conduit for the syringe barrel and plunger assembly to eject the liquid through). Therefore, the needle alone does not meet the functional limitation of a “head” that performs ejection because a needle is merely a nozzle or conduit.
Prior art Takagi et al. (JP2004003950A)(References herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) teaches sterilization of liquid ejection head assembly including an embodiment where the head can be subject to steam heat sterilization such as high pressure steam (para. [0020]).
Prior art Shimizu et al. (US20190061353) teaches a liquid ejection head covered with a protection member in a non-contact manner (Figs. 4, 5 and 14).
However, both Takagi and Shimizu fail to teach housing the protection member and the liquid ejection head in a sheet member having a bag shape; or housing the liquid ejection head in a space formed by covering an opening portion of the protection member with a sheet member; and performing vapor sterilization on the assembly, wherein the sheet member is vapor permeable at least at one portion in such a manner as to block entry of bacteria into the liquid ejection head, in a state where the sheet member and the ejection port surface are out of contact with each other as required by independent claim 1.
The claims are therefore considered to be patentably distinguished from the prior art of record. The remaining claims would be allowable due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 1, 4-14, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sudo (WO 2013175834 A1), directed to a high-pressure vapor sterilization device and method
Kitamura (US 20150190541 A1), directed to a high-pressure vapor sterilization device and method for sterilizing a packaging similar in structure to Frost (closest art of record).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758