DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobashi et al. (2020/04006621).
Regarding claim 1, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device to which a liquid accommodation portion configured to accommodate a liquid containing a solvent is attached, the liquid ejection device comprising:
a liquid ejection portion (figs. 3, 6, item 20) in which a nozzle (figs. 3, 6, item 21) configured to eject the liquid is open;
a cap (figs. 3, 6, item 41 on bottom of page) configured to form a space communicating with the nozzle by coming into contact with the liquid ejection portion (figs. 3, 6);
an atmosphere flow path (figs. 3, 6, item 42/53/55) coupled to the liquid accommodation portion (figs. 3, 6, item 50) and the cap;
a suction portion (fig. 3, item 43P) located in the atmosphere flow path and configured to suck the liquid discharged from the nozzle to the cap ([0042]); and
a dehumidification portion (figs. 3, 6, side of item 50 closer to pumps 43, note that humidifying waste liquid is transported out of cap and into dehumidification portion 50 to lessen the humidity in the cap) disposed downstream of the suction portion towards the liquid accommodation portion (fig. 3, portion of item 50 farther from pumps 43), the dehumidification portion being configured to dehumidify an atmosphere inside at least any one of the liquid accommodation portion, the cap, and the atmosphere flow path (figs. 3, 6, Again, note that humidity in the form of unevaporated solvent is moved from the cap to the dehumidification portion, as defined above).
Note that all of the “portions” in the claim leave the claim broad and open to the above interpretation.
Regarding claim 2, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the dehumidification portion dehumidifies the atmosphere inside the cap (figs. 3, 6, Note that absorbent 412 absorbs liquid inside the cap, thereby dehumidifying the cap).
Regarding claim 3, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, comprising:
Regarding claim 4, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 3, comprising:
a receiving portion (fig. 3, item 41 on top of page) configured to receive the liquid discharged from the nozzle (see fig. 3); and
a coupling flow path (item 53 connected to item 41 on top of page) coupled to the atmosphere flow path and the receiving portion, wherein the liquid accommodation portion accommodates the liquid received by the receiving portion (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, comprising: a suction flow path (fig. 3, item 42/55/50) coupled to the liquid accommodation portion and the cap (see fig. 3); and
the suction portion (fig. 3, item 43) located in the suction flow path and configured to suck the liquid discharged from the nozzle to the cap, wherein the liquid accommodation portion accommodates the liquid sucked by the suction portion (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 5, comprising: a receiving portion (fig. 3, item 41 on top of page) configured to receive the liquid discharged from the nozzle (see fig. 3); and a coupling flow path (fig. 3, item 53, corresponding to item 41 on top of page) coupled to the suction flow path and the receiving portion (see fig. 43), wherein the liquid accommodation portion accommodates the liquid received by the receiving portion (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the dehumidification portion includes a dehumidifier accommodation body configured to accommodate a dehumidifier (figs. 3, 6).
Regarding claim 9, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 8, wherein the dehumidifier accommodation body is configured to be detachable (see fig. 8, Note that the cap body 410 can be removed from the printer housing).
Regarding claim 12, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the liquid is an ink in which the solvent is a main silvent and a pigment ink dispersed in the solvent ([0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the dehumidification portion is coupled to the atmosphere flow path to prevent the atmosphere inside the cap from containing water (see claim 1 rejection. Note that, as defined, this is the case).
Regarding claim 15, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, wherein the dehumidifier accommodation body is configured to be detachable from the atmosphere flow path (see fig. 3, Note that any waste ink tank is detachable/replaceable).
Regarding claim 16, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1, comprising: a receiving portion (fig. 3, item 41 on top of page) configured to receive the liquid discharged from the nozzle (see fig. 3); and a coupling flow path (fig. 3, item 53, corresponding to item 41 on top of page) coupled to the suction flow path and the receiving portion (see fig. 43), wherein the dehumidification portion is disposed in the atmosphere flow path between the accommodation portion and a position where the couple flow path connects to the atmosphere flow path (see claim 1 rejection, fig. 3).
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) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobashi in view of Matsunaga (2019/0299660).
Regarding claim 14, Kobashi teaches the liquid ejection device according to claim 1. Kobashi does not teach wherein the dehumidification portion includes a dehumidifier, and the dehumidifier contains at least one of a silica gel and a molecular sieve. Matsunaga teaches a dehumidifying silica gel for evaporated solvents in an inkjet printer (Matsunaga, [0115]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a silica gel as a dehumidifier, as disclosed by Matsunaga, in the device disclosed by Kobashi because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the arrangement of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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. RODRIGUEZ 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853