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 § 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 1, 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25 and 27 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 the limitation "the first electrode" in lines 10, 14, 16, 19 and 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since each of the plurality of first sensor substrates includes a first electrode, it is unclear to which of the plurality of first electrodes “the first electrode” refers.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25 and 27 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for inheriting the same problem.
Claims 3, 9, 10 and 24 also recite “the first electrode” and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the tank" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to which of the plurality of tanks “the tank” refers.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 16, 21, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,486,429 issued to Horne (“Horne”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,845,224 issued to Barlesi et al. (“Barlesi”).
As for claim 1, Horne discloses a recording apparatus (Fig. 9B) comprising:
a plurality of tanks (106a, 106b) each of which is configured to store a liquid or powder to be supplied to a recording portion (100) configured to perform recording;
a first sensor substrate (144) that is attached to an outer surface (118, 142) of a tank and includes a first electrode (140B of 134A).
Horne does not explicitly disclose a plurality of first sensor substrates because Horne does not explicitly disclose a plurality of ink supplies 102.
However, Horne discloses that an ink supply 102 has two tanks (i.e. containers 106) of differently colored ink (see Figs. 1 and 5 and col. 2, lines 41-54). Horne also discloses that a printer can contain reservoirs for four different ink colors (col. 1, lines 13-18). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these four colors could be provided by two ink supplies 102.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the recording apparatus of Horne to have two ink supplies 102 in order to print black and color images.
Horne as modified above discloses a plurality (i.e. one substrate for each of the two ink supplies 102) of first sensor substrates (144) each of which is attached to an outer surface (118, 142) of a corresponding one of the plurality of tanks (see Figs. 2 and 3) and includes a first electrode (140B of 134A).
Horne as modified above does not disclose a second sensor substrate and a circuit as recited.
However, Barlesi discloses a second sensor substrate (substrate for capacitor 12; col. 8, line 63 - col. 9, line 6 and col. 12, lines 7-17) that is remote from a tank (“It is placed … close to it” in col. 8, lines 63-65 implies that the second substrate of capacitor 12 is spaced apart from the tank 24.) and a first sensor substrate (4, 48) and includes a second electrode (inherent for capacitor 12); and
a circuit (Fig. 3) connected to each of a first electrode (part of capacitor 4) and the second electrode (part of 12).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the recording apparatus of Horne by including the second sensor substrate and circuit as disclosed by Barlesi in order to compensate for the parasitic effects of temperature and other factors (Barlesi: col. 3, lines 17-19 and col. 8, line 63 - col. 9, line 6).
Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses a dielectric (Barlesi: for example air or other material that is between capacitor 12 and tank 24) that is remote from one tank (Horne: 102 and Barlesi: 24) among the plurality of tanks and the one first sensor substrate (Horne: 144) among the plurality of first sensor substrates and that affects a detection by the first electrode (air affects the capacitance measurement; see paragraph [0039] of the instant specification),
wherein a position of the second electrode in the recording apparatus is such that the dielectric (Barlesi: for example air or other material that is between capacitor 12 and tank 24) resides between the first electrode and the second electrode (because the arrangement of the tank and first electrode of Horne prevents the second electrode from being adjacent the first electrode.), and
wherein, based on a first detection result of detection of the stored liquid or powder by the first electrode (Horne: Abstract) and a second detection result of detection by the second electrode that is used to adjust the first detection result (Barlesi: col. 8, line 63 - col. 9, line 6), the recording apparatus detects an amount of the liquid or powder stored in the tank (Horne: Abstract).
Horne as modified by Barlesi does not explicitly disclose that the position of the second electrode in the recording apparatus is such that the second electrode does not face the first electrode.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to position the second electrode of the Horne-Barlesi combination such that the second electrode does not face the first electrode because Applicant has not disclosed that positioning the second electrode such that the second electrode does not face the first electrode provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the second electrode of the Horne-Barlesi combination and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the arrangement taught by the Horne-Barlesi combination or the claimed arrangement because both arrangements would perform the same function of compensating for the parasitic effects of temperature and other factors .
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the Horne-Barlesi combination to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Horne and Barlesi.
As for claims 3 and 10, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses that the first electrode (Horne: 140B) and the second electrode (Barlesi: part of 12) are connected via the circuit and a conducting wire (Barlesi: see Fig. 3).
As for claim 9, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses that, based on a result of detection by the first electrode where the result is corrected based on a result of detection by the second electrode (Barlesi: col. 8, line 63 - col. 9, line 6), the recording apparatus detects an amount of the liquid or powder stored in the one tank (Horne: Abstract).
As for claim 16, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses that the one tank includes an introduction portion (Horne: connected to 124A) configured to receive introduction of the liquid or powder into the one tank,
wherein the recording portion (100) is configured to perform recording by ejecting ink to a recording medium, and
wherein the second electrode (Barlesi: part of 12) is disposed on a rear face side of the tank (Barlesi: whatever side of 24 that faces 12 is the rear face side) and away from a rear face of the one tank (Barlesi: “It is placed … close to it” in col. 8, lines 63-65 implies that the second substrate of capacitor 12 is spaced apart from a rear face of tank 24).
As for claim 21, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses that the second electrode (Barlesi: part of 12) is configured to detect a reference electrostatic capacity and is positioned away from the one tank at a distance long enough to avoid influence on the detected reference electrostatic capacity from a change in an amount of liquid, powder, or air in the one tank (Barlesi: implied by col. 8, line 63 - col. 9, line 18).
As for claim 24, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses that the dielectric (Barlesi: atmospheric air with a small amount of moisture is implicitly included in Fig. 3) is configured to conduct electric current (moist air can conduct current) that causes an offset in a detection value of a contact electrostatic capacity of a sensor that includes the first electrode,
wherein the dielectric that affects a detection by the first electrode includes at least one of condensation or moisture in air (atmospheric air contains moisture), a machinery portion, a portion of conducting wire, or components.
As for claim 25, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses that the recording apparatus is an ink jet printer (Horne: col. 2, lines 59-60), and the tank is a plurality of ink tanks independent of each other (Horne: see Fig. 1) and fixed to a main unit of the recording apparatus (Horne: see Figs. 1 and 9B).
As for claim 27, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses the recording apparatus according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Although Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses that the second electrode is part of the second substrate, Horne as modified by Barlesi does not explicitly disclose that the second electrode is part of a substrate for another component of the recording apparatus because Horne as modified by Barlesi does not disclose that the second substrate has another component.
However, Horne discloses a substrate (144) that includes an electrode (132) also has another component (circuitry 146). The circuitry 146 detects the capacitance of the electrode (Horne: col. 4, lines 52-56).
Horne and Barlesi disclose each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the circuitry 146 of Horne with the second substrate of Barlesi by attaching the circuitry 146 to the substrate as suggested by Fig. 6 of Horne, and that in combination, the circuitry and substrate merely perform the same functions as each does separately. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the second substrate of Horne and Barlesi to include the circuitry 146 of Horne to achieve the predictable result of providing circuitry to process the signals form the second electrode.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,486,429 issued to Horne (“Horne”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,845,224 issued to Barlesi et al. (“Barlesi”) as applied to claims 3 and 10, further in view of JP-2705257 (“JP-2705257”).
As for claims 4 and 11, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses the recording apparatus according to claims 3 and 10 (see the rejections of claims 3 and 10 above).
Horne as modified by Barlesi does not disclose that the recording apparatus detects the amount of the liquid or powder stored in the one tank further based on information about an electrostatic capacity of the conducting wire.
However, JP-2705257 discloses a recording apparatus that detects an amount of liquid or powder stored in a tank further based on information about an electrostatic capacity of a conducting wire (see step 108, where the term A*B*LS is information about (i.e. a component proportional to) the electrostatic capacity of lead lines 8 and 9).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the recording apparatus of Horne and by Barlesi to detect and amount of liquid or powder based on further based on information about an electrostatic capacity of a conducting wire as disclosed by JP-2705257 in order to correct for stray capacitance of lead wires (JP-27-5257: see the first paragraph of “Problem to be Solved by the Invention”).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,486,429 issued to Horne (“Horne”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,845,224 issued to Barlesi et al. (“Barlesi”) as applied to claims 1 and 9, further in view of U.S. Patent 8,789,414 issued to Park (“Park”).
As for claims 5 and 12, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses the recording apparatus according to claims 1 and 9 (see the rejections of claims 1 and 9 above).
Horne as modified by Barlesi does not disclose a notification unit configured to provide a notification to a user, wherein, in a case where a value obtained based on the first and second detection results, the notification unit provides the user with a notification based on that value where the notification indicates the amount of the liquid or powder stored in the one tank.
However, Park discloses a notification unit (col. 7, lines 44-46) configured to provide a notification to a user, wherein, in a case where a value obtained based on first and second detection results, a notification unit provides a user with a notification based on that value where the notification indicates an amount of the liquid or powder stored in a tank (col. 7, lines 34-46).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the recording apparatus of Horne and Barlesi to include the notification unit as disclosed by Park so that a user can recognize when the liquid or powder has reached a certain height (Park: co. 7, lines 44-46).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,486,429 issued to Horne (“Horne”) in view of U.S. Patent 7,845,224 issued to Barlesi et al. (“Barlesi”) as applied to claims 1 and 9, further in view of U.S. Patent 8,789,414 issued to Park (“Park”) and U.S. Patent 10,664,729 issued to Sato et al. (“Sato”).
As for claims 7 and 14, Horne as modified by Barlesi discloses the recording apparatus according to claims 1 and 9 (see the rejections of claims 1 and 9 above).
Horne as modified by Barlesi does not disclose a notification unit configured to provide a notification to a user.
However, Park discloses a notification unit (col. 7, lines 44-46) configured to provide a notification to a user.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the recording apparatus of Horne and Barlesi to include the notification unit as disclosed by Park so that a user can recognize when the liquid or powder has reached a certain height (Park: co. 7, lines 44-46).
Horne as modified by Barlesi and Park does not disclose that the recording apparatus is configured to compare a value obtained based on the first and second detection results with a predetermined threshold value, generate a notification form that comparison, and provide the notification to the user via the notification unit, and wherein, in a case where the recording apparatus determines that the obtained value is less than the predetermined threshold value, the generated notification provided to the user indicates that the amount of the liquid or powder stored in the one tank is small.
However, Sato discloses a recording apparatus that is configured to compare an obtained value with a predetermined threshold value (step S15), generate a notification from that comparison (step S17), and provide the notification to a user via a notification unit (step S17), and wherein, in a case where the recording apparatus determines that the obtained value is less than the predetermined threshold value (step S15 - no), the generated notification provided to the user indicates that an amount of the liquid or powder stored in a tank is small (step S17 and Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the recording apparatus of Horne, Barlesi and Park to provide a user with a notification as disclosed by Sato so that a user knows when to replenish the tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 9/3/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 23 (which is now included in claim 1) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Horne and Barlesi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853