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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 12 are examined.
Claims 5 and 7 are cancelled.
Claims 11 and 13 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections; therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
in claim 1, the limitation “wherein the liquid ejection apparatus is configured so that a water head difference defined by a height of the ejection port face and a height of the liquid surface of the hydraulic fluid in the sub tank is a first water head difference in a case where a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount, and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount” is recited, but the limitation and the terms “first water head difference”, “first amount”, “second water head difference”, and second amount” are not recited in the instant specification. The limitation is interpreted based on ¶ [0086-0090] and FIG. 7A-7B as argued by applicant in the remarks filed March 13, 2026
in claim 6, the limitation “wherein when the use amount is a third amount larger than the second amount, the water head different is a third water heat difference smaller than the second water head difference” is recited, but the limitation and the terms “third water head difference” and “third amount” are not recited in the instant specification. The limitation is interpreted based on ¶ [0091-0094] and FIG. 8A-8B
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because reference characters 35 and 26 are not enclosed in parentheses. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
The claims fall into the category of a machine comprising a computer system.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
“obtain the use amount, and based on the relationship, calculates a first pressure in the first storage space from the first amount and a second pressure in the first storage space from the second amount”
The limitation of “obtain” and “calculate” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a control unit,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “control unit” language,:
“obtain the use amount,” in the context of the claim encompasses the user observing a predetermined use amount
“based on the relationship, calculates a first pressure in the first storage space from the first amount and a second pressure in the first storage space from the second amount,” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating or performing math for the relationship between the pressure in the first storage space and the use amount to determine the pressure required.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a control unit perform the obtain and calculate steps. The controller in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of obtaining and calculating) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional element of using a control unit perform obtain and calculate steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai (US 2016/0026084 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arai discloses a liquid ejection apparatus (¶ [0021] - liquid discharge apparatus/dispenser 10) comprising:
an ejection head (¶ [0021] – discharge nozzle/discharge port 11) having an ejection port face in which an ejection port configured to eject an ejection material is formed (discharge nozzle/port would inherently comprise of an ejection port face and ejection port);
a storage container (¶ [0021] – a container 12) including a first storage space that stores the ejection material (¶ [0021] – resin containing portion/first chamber 15; ¶ [0023] – resin inside 15) and communicates with the ejection head (¶ [0021] – 15 in communication with 11), and a second storage space (¶ [0022] – liquid filler containing portion/second chamber) that is separated from the first storage space by a film (¶ [0022] – two spaces of 12 divided by dividing member 14; 14 is an aluminum multi-layer film; one layer would inherently be forming a part of 15 and the another layer would be forming a part of 16) and stores a hydraulic fluid (¶ [0022] –16 filled with liquid filler/second liquid, cooling water or the like);
a sub tank (¶ [0032] – sub-tank 45) that communicates with the second storage space (¶ [0032] – in fluid communication with 16) and is capable of supplying the hydraulic fluid to the second storage space (¶ [0032] – to adjust the pressure of the liquid filler in 16; would be capable of supplying liquid filler (claimed hydraulic fluid) as it is in fluid communication to 16 and adjusts pressure of the liquid filler); and
a main tank (¶ [0034] – main tank 50) that is capable of supplying the hydraulic fluid to the sub tank (¶ [0036] – liquid filler is supplied by the liquid feed pump 49 from 50 to the sub-tank 45), in which the ejection port face is arranged at a position higher than a liquid surface of the hydraulic fluid in the sub tank (FIG. 6 depicts 11 arranged at a position higher than a liquid surface of the filler liquid in 45); and
wherein the liquid ejection apparatus is configured (¶ [0021] – 11 is controlled) so that a water head difference defined by a height of the ejection port face (FIG. 6 depicts a height of the ejection port face) and a height of the liquid surface of the hydraulic fluid in the sub tank (FIG. 6 depicts a height of the fluid in 45) is a first water head difference (FIG. 6 depicts a water head difference) in a case where a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount (¶ [0035] – 14 moves and liquid filler is sucked from 45 to 12, which consequently, lowers the liquid level position of the liquid filler in 45; liquid level height in 45 is controlled, thereby controlling the pressure at the meniscus of 11 to fall within a predetermined range; 10 operates to discharge the resin from 11) and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount (¶ [0035] – liquid filler is supplied from 50 to 45; liquid level height in 45 is controlled, thereby controlling the pressure at the meniscus of 11 to fall within a predetermined range; therefore, as an amount of resin is discharge from 11 is increased, the liquid filler can be supplied from 50 to 45, thereby increasing the liquid filler level in 45 and makes the water head difference between 45 and 11 smaller).
PNG
media_image1.png
839
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Arai FIG. 6
Regarding the limitation “a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount”, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP § 2114 (IV).
Therefore, as the liquid discharge apparatus comprises a discharge port, container comprising the discharge port, a sub-tank that supplies liquid filler to the container, and a main tank that supplies liquid filler, the liquid discharge apparatus in Arai would be capable of performing “a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount”.
Regarding claim 3, Arai discloses the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1.
Arai discloses a control unit (¶ [0021] – 11 is controlled by a controller 30) that stores a relationship between a pressure in the first storage space (¶ [0022] – controlling the pressure of the liquid filler in 16 and controls supply of the liquid filler from the supply unit 13, thereby indirectly controlling the pressure of the resin in 15 and accordingly a shape of a discharge interface (meniscus) at 11) and the use amount of the ejection material ejected from the ejection port (¶ [0019] – a predetermined amount of the resin is discharged from the discharge nozzle).
Regarding the limitation “a control unit that stores a relationship between a pressure in the first storage space and the use amount”, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP § 2114 (IV). Therefore, as the limitation does not recite the “control unit” is “configured to” perform the recited functions or “executed to” cause the apparatus to perform the recited functions stored in the storage unit, the functions are treated as intended use. Therefore, the “controller” in Arai would be capable of performing “a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount” and “stores a relationship between a pressure in the first storage space and the use amount of the ejection material ejected from the ejection port”.
Regarding claim 4, modified Arai discloses the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 3,
Arai further discloses wherein the control unit obtains the use amount (¶ [0019] – a predetermined amount of the resin is discharged from the discharge nozzle), and based on the relationship, calculates a first pressure in the first storage space from the first amount and a second pressure in the first storage space from the second amount (¶ [0022] – controlling the pressure of the liquid filler in 16 and controls supply of the liquid filler from the supply unit 13, thereby indirectly controlling the pressure of the resin in 15 and accordingly a shape of a discharge interface (meniscus) at 11; as the pressure is controlled, the pressure would be calculated by the controller based on the predetermined amount to be discharged), and wherein in a case of the first pressure, the water head difference is the first water head difference, and in a case of the second pressure, the water head difference is the second water head difference (¶ [0035] – 10 operates to discharge the resin from 11, 14 moves and liquid filler is sucked from 45 to 12, which consequently, lowers the liquid level position of the liquid filler in 45 and liquid filler is supplied from 50 to 45; the pressures controlled would achieve the water head differences as analyzed in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Arai discloses the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the use amount is a third amount (¶ [0035] – 14 moves and liquid filler is sucked from 45 to 12, which consequently, lowers the liquid level position of the liquid filler in 45; liquid level height in 45 is controlled, thereby controlling the pressure at the meniscus of 11 to fall within a predetermined range; 10 operates to discharge the resin from 11) larger than the second amount the water head difference is a third water head difference smaller than the second water head difference (¶ [0035] – liquid filler is supplied from 50 to 45; liquid level height in 45 is controlled, thereby controlling the pressure at the meniscus of 11 to fall within a predetermined range; therefore, as an amount of resin is discharge from 11 is increased, the liquid filler can be supplied from 50 to 45, thereby increasing the liquid filler level in 45 and makes the water head difference between 45 and 11 smaller).
The limitation in claim 6 recites an intended use. Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP § 2114 (IV).
Regarding claim 8, Arai discloses The liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sub tank includes a liquid surface detection unit that detects the liquid surface (¶ [0035] – sensor 46 for detecting the upper liquid level position in 45 detects the raised liquid level position).
Regarding claim 9, Arai discloses The liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the film includes a first film that forms a part of the first storage space and a second film that forms a part of the second storage space (¶ [0022] – 14 is an aluminum multi-layer film; one layer would inherently be forming a part of 15 and the another layer would be forming a part of 16).
Regarding claim 10, Arai discloses The liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the ejection material is an imprint material that is a resist made of a thermosetting resin (¶ [0017] – resin (imprint material) cured by radiating light).
The limitation “ejection material is an imprint material that is a resist made of a thermosetting resin” recites the material or article worked upon by the apparatus. Applicant is reminded material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 12, Arai discloses an imprint apparatus (¶ [0008] – imprint apparatus 100) comprising:
a liquid ejection unit (¶ [0021] - liquid discharge apparatus/dispenser 10) comprising:
an ejection head (¶ [0021] – discharge nozzle/discharge port 11) having an ejection port face in which an ejection port configured to eject an ejection material is formed (discharge nozzle/port would inherently comprise of an ejection port face and ejection port);
a storage container (¶ [0021] – a container 12) including a first storage space that stores the ejection material (¶ [0021] – resin containing portion/first chamber 15; ¶ [0023] – resin inside 15) and communicates with the ejection head (¶ [0021] – 15 in communication with 11), and a second storage space (¶ [0022] – liquid filler containing portion/second chamber) that is separated from the first storage space by a film (¶ [0022] – two spaces of 12 divided by dividing member 14) and stores a hydraulic fluid (¶ [0022] –16 filled with liquid filler/second liquid, cooling water or the like);
a sub tank (¶ [0032] – sub-tank 45) that communicates with the second storage space (¶ [0032] – in fluid communication with 16) and is capable of supplying the hydraulic fluid to the second storage space (¶ [0032] – to adjust the pressure of the liquid filler in 16; would be capable of supplying liquid filler (claimed hydraulic fluid));
a main tank (¶ [0034] – main tank 50) that is capable of supplying the hydraulic fluid to the sub tank (¶ [0036] – liquid filler is supplied by the liquid feed pump 49 from 50 to the sub-tank 45); and
a pattern formation unit (¶ [0018] – a mold 1) that forms a pattern corresponding to an uneven pattern of a mold (¶ [0018] – a fine rugged pattern is formed on 1), in which the ejection port face is arranged at a position higher than a liquid surface of the hydraulic fluid in the sub tank (FIG. 6 depicts 11 arranged at a position higher than a liquid surface of the filler liquid in 45); and
wherein the imprint apparatus is configured so that a water head difference defined by a height of the ejection port face (FIG. 6 depicts a height of the ejection port face) and a height of the liquid surface of the hydraulic fluid in the sub tank (FIG. 6 depicts a height of the fluid in 45) is a first water head difference (FIG. 6 depicts a water head difference) in a case where a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount (¶ [0035] – 14 moves and liquid filler is sucked from 45 to 12, which consequently, lowers the liquid level position of the liquid filler in 45 and liquid filler is supplied from 50 to 45; liquid level height in 45 is controlled, thereby controlling the pressure at the meniscus of 11 to fall within a predetermined range; 10 operates to discharge the resin from 11) and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount (depending on the amount of resin discharge from 11, the lowering of liquid level height in 45, thereby affecting the water head difference, would be adjusted).
PNG
media_image1.png
839
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Arai FIG. 6
Regarding the limitation “a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount”, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP § 2114 (IV).
Therefore, as the liquid discharge apparatus comprises a discharge port, container comprising the discharge port, a sub-tank that supplies liquid filler to the container, and a main tank that supplies liquid filler, the liquid discharge apparatus in Arai would be capable of performing “a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Arai (US 2016/0026084 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Fukuda (US 2014/0285586 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Arai discloses the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein changing the height of the liquid surface of the hydraulic fluid in the sub tank (¶ [0035] – the liquid level height of the liquid filler in 45 is raised; the liquid level height in 45 is controlled; when lowered liquid level position is detected, liquid filler is supplied from 50 to 45 by pump 49) with respect to the position of the ejection port face (as depicted in FIG. 6, raising or lowering of the liquid filler due to discharging and supplying the liquid filler would be with respect to the position of the ejection port face).
Arai further discloses liquid filler is supplied from 50 to 45 by pump 49 (¶ [0035]).
Arai does not explicitly disclose the pump 49 performs reverse operation to return fluid filler from 45 to 50, therefore perform “switching between the first water head difference and the second water head difference”.
Fukuda discloses a liquid ejection head, liquid being supplied from a liquid container with a negative pressure generating section (Abstract). A buffer chamber 54 is in communication with a waste ink tank through a pump (¶ [0041]). A pump is a transfer section, which serves as means for transferring the liquid and/or gas into the print head (¶ [0041]).
Fukuda further disclose switching between the first water head difference and the second water head difference is performed (¶ [0041] - transferring the liquid and/or gas into and out from the print head; a tube pump capable of forward and reverse rotations).
Arai and Fukuda disclose an apparatus with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the reversible pump in Fukuda to the pump in Arai to discharge ink as result of the recovery operation into waste ink tank by a suction force generated using the pump (¶ [0042]), allows ink supply performance to be improved so as to enable high-speed printing (¶ [0049]), and introduce negative pressure into the print head; thus, the liquid flows out of the print head enabling liquid to be recovered (¶ [0059]),
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Arai is not “configured so that a water head difference defined by a height of the ejection port face and a height of the liquid surface of the hydraulic fluid in the sub tank is a first water head difference in a case where a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount” as recited in amended claim 1 and how to control the water head difference, let alone in the claimed manner.
Arai discloses liquid filler is sucked from 45 to 12, which consequently, lowers the liquid level position of the liquid filler in 45 and 10 operates to discharge the resin from 11 (¶ [0035]). Liquid filler is supplied from 50 to 45 and liquid level height in 45 is controlled, thereby controlling the pressure at the meniscus of 11 to fall within a predetermined range (¶ [0035]). Therefore, as an amount of resin is discharge from 11 is increased, the liquid filler can be supplied from 50 to 45, thereby increasing the liquid filler level in 45 and changes the water head difference between 45 and 11 (i.e., smaller).
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP § 2114 (IV). Therefore, as the limitation does not recite the “control unit” is “configured to” perform the recited functions or “executed to” cause the apparatus to perform the recited functions stored in the storage unit, the functions are treated as intended use.
Therefore, as the liquid discharge apparatus comprises a discharge port, container comprising the discharge port, a sub-tank that supplies liquid filler to the container, and a main tank that supplies liquid filler, the liquid discharge apparatus in Arai would be capable of performing “a use amount of the ejected ejection material is a first amount and is a second water head difference smaller than the first water head difference in a case where the use amount is a second amount larger than the first amount”.
Applicant argues Arai does not disclose the water head difference is switched between the first and second water head differences depending on the use amount of the ejection material.
The argument is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 over Arai in view of Fukuda.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0288521 A1 discloses a liquid discharge apparatus comprising a head including a discharge port surface, a first reservoir, a flexible member, a second reservoir, and an adjustment unit that performs adjustment to a position of the liquid surface of the operation liquid in the second reservoir falls within a predetermined range
US 2018/0015726 A1 discloses a tablet printing apparatus including an inkjet head
US 8303078 B2 discloses a liquid ejection apparatus comprising a pressure adjustment pump driven in reverse while the pressure meter measures the internal pressure of sub tank
US 2007/0229588 A1 discloses a liquid ejection apparatus where a pump is reversely driven
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights