DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The following is in reply to the applicants submission (e.g. amendment, remarks, etc.) filed on December 8, 2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 through 8, previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, have been cancelled.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous office action1 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Title and Abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2017/0217185 to Wagner et al (hereinafter “Wagner”) in view of U.S. Publication 2009/0201349 to Wazana et al (hereinafter "Wazana").
Wagner discloses an assembly method for a liquid discharge device (e.g. Figs. 3A, 3B) comprising:
mounting a cap (e.g. 320) to a head (e.g. 305) that comprises a first surface configured to discharge liquid, the cap covering the first surface (e.g. Fig. 3A);
fixing the head to which the cap is mounted to a holding portion (e.g. 330, Fig. 3A, ¶ [0039]); and
removing the cap from the head that is fixed to the holding portion (e.g. Fig. 3B, ¶ [0040]).
Wagner does teach a robot arm.
Wazana discloses an assembly method for a liquid discharge device (e.g. Fig. 7) that comprises a robot arm (e.g. 71), and a holding portion (e.g. 34) that is located at a tip of the robot arm, which is necessary to orient and position a head (e.g. 48) on a cap (e.g. 70, ¶ [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wagner by adding a robot arm, in the manner taught by Wazana, to positively orient and position the head relative to the cap.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on December 28, 2025 have been fully considered, but have not been deemed to be found as persuasive.
First, applicants argue that Wagner does not describe a process for fixing the head 310 with the attached cap 320 to the sealing portion, e.g. “fixing the head to which the cap is mounted to a holding portion” (line 5 of Claim 13). The applicants statement on page 8 of their submission is not entirely understood by the examiner as Figure 3A of Wagner shows the end result of the fixing step. It is noted that the mounting step and fixing step are not entirely exclusive of each other as claimed. The two steps can certainly overlap one another. In this case, the claimed “holding portion” was read as sealing portion 330. The mounting step is met once the holding portion 330 of the cap 320 contacts the die (310) portion of the head 305 shown in Figure 3A. While this is occurring, Wagner further states that part of this process continues with a magnetic attraction using magnets 315 (Fig. 3A) to fix, or seal off, the cap 320 with the holding portion 330 (e.g. ¶ [0039]). This is further evident from the terminology of element 320 being references as a “sealing portion”.
Secondly, in regards to the merits of Wazana, applicants state that the robotic arm (71, Fig. 7) is an external device for a cartridge assembly and not part of the liquid discharge device. Therefore, Wazana cannot be combined with Wagner because the limitations of “the liquid device comprises a robot arm” (line 7 of Claim 13) are not met. While the examiner agrees with the applicants on this point with Wazana, there is a disagreement on the claim construction.
Claim 13 recites in the preamble “An assembly method…” (line 1) and an open ended transitional phrase of “comprising” (line 2). Taking these two into consideration, the recitation of “the liquid discharge comprises a robot arm” does not mean that the robot arm is part of the final structure of the liquid discharge device. It can certainly mean that the robot arm is a structural element separate from the liquid discharge head that is required for the “assembly method”. This was the interpretation made for Claim 13, in which the teaching of Wazana was to position a head 48 on a cap 70 with the use of a robot arm 71 (Fig. 7). This teaching can certainly be applied to Wagner as both are analogous to an assembly method of mounting a cap to a head, for the reasons stated in the foregoing rejection. Furthermore, to modify the assembly method of Wagner by adding the robot arm taught by Wazana, does provide greater accuracy in placement of the head to the cap. If applicants wish to include the robot arm as part of the final structure of the liquid discharge device, then further limitations in Claim 13 would be needed to clarify this.
In summary, all of the limitations of Claim 13 are met by Wagner in view of Wazana, as the rejection has been maintained for all of the previous reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claim 9 has been rewritten in independent form to incorporated the allowable subject matter of Claim 12 (now cancelled) and intervening Claim 10 (now cancelled).
Accordingly, Claims 9 and 16 through 18 have been allowed.
Claims 14 and 15 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicants amendment filed as part of their submission has 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 A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
1 Non-Final action, mailed on September 10, 2025.