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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an image formation portion, in claim 1; an/the acquisition portion, in claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8; a/the storage portion, in claim 8; and an image formation portion, in claim 12.
In par 25 (USPGPUB), i.e., [0025] The control unit 30 has a coefficient storage unit 31, a time acquisition unit 32, an evaluation value acquisition unit 33, an evaluation value accumulation unit 34, and a time recording unit 35. The coefficient storage unit 31 (corresponding to the “storage portion” of the present disclosure), is interpreted to read on: a/the storage portion, in claim 8.
In pars 25-26 (USPGPUB), and in figure 1, the evaluation value acquisition unit 33 (of control unit 30), is interpreted to read on: an/the acquisition portion, in claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8.
In pars 15 and 17-18, printing system 100 (image formation system) and the printer 1 includes image formation unit 10, is interpreted to read on: an image formation portion, in claims 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano Takatoshi et al. (EP 3 263 344 A1), cited by applicant submitted IDS dated 09/16/2024.
As to claim 1, Nakano Takatoshi et al. discloses an image forming device (see figures 1-3 and figures 25-26, and pars 14, 24 and 99, i.e., printing apparatus 1000) to which a cartridge (see figure 3, and pars 24-25, i.e., tank 1003 and see figs. 25-26, i.e., tanks 1003 and 1006) storing colorant (i.e., C, M, Y and K, see pars 24-25) to be used for image formation is detachably attachable (inherently the tanks can be detachably attachable to refill ink supply and the valves in figures 25-26, indicate the close/open, inherently the tanks can be detachably attachable), the image forming device (see figures 1-3 and figures 25-26, and pars 14, 24 and 99, i.e., printing apparatus 1000) comprising: an image formation portion (see figures 1, 2, 3 and 25-26, i.e., print head 3 and see pars 14-15 and 21) configured to form an image on a medium (see figure 1, medium 2, and see par 21) using the colorant stored in the cartridge (see figure 3, and pars 24-25, i.e., tank 1003 and see figs. 25-26, i.e., tanks 1003 and 1006) attached to the image forming device (see figures 1-3 and figures 25-26, and pars 14, 24 and 99, i.e., printing apparatus 1000); and a controller (see figure 2, i.e., controller unit 410) configured to perform: an elapsed time acquisition process acquiring a length of elapsed time in each of a first time period (see pars 75, and 78, and see figures 19-20, printing time Tx) and a second time period (i.e., time Ty); an evaluation value acquisition process acquiring an evaluation value including a first evaluation value (i.e., Vx, see fig. 19 and see pars 75-76) for the first time period (Tx) and a second evaluation value (i.e., Vy, see figure 20 and pars 77-78) for the second time period (Ty), each of the first evaluation value (Vx) and the second evaluation value (Vy) specifying a degree of change in a quality of the colorant in the cartridge (1003, 1006) during a corresponding one of the first time period (Tx) and the second time period (Ty) and being based on the length of elapsed time (Tx, Ty) acquired in the elapsed time acquisition process and an ambient environment (see pars 72, 75 and 78, i.e., temperature) of the cartridge (1003, 1006) affecting the quality of the colorant (see figs 17-20 and see pars 72-79, i.e., see figure 17, higher or increase in moisture evaporation rate leads to higher or rises ink viscosity, influencing print quality, and leads to unstable ejection or non-ejection state), the ambient environment (i.e., temperature) in the first time period (Tx) being different from the ambient environment in the second time period (Ty) (see pars 75 and 78 and see table 2); and an outputting process outputting an output value (V) reflecting both the first evaluation value (Vx) and the second evaluation value (Vy) (see par 79 and 0101).
As to claim 7, Nakano Takatoshi et al. discloses wherein the quality of the colorant (i.e., ink viscosity) is related to an amount of a liquid in the colorant, and wherein the evaluation value (i.e., moisture evaporation rate, evaporation speed, evaporation amount) is an estimated evaporation amount (see figures 16, 17 and 19-20) of the liquid in the colorant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8-9 and 10-11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 2, the closest prior art of record, namely, Nakano Takatoshi et al., discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, an acquisition portion configured to acquire an environmental value indicating the ambient environment, wherein in the evaluation value acquisition process, the controller acquires the evaluation value based on the environmental value acquired by the acquisition portion, as recited in dependent claim 2.
Claims 3-6 and 8 are objected to because they are dependent on objected to claim 2 discussed above.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the closest prior art of record, namely, Nakano Takatoshi et al., discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the first time period is a period of time prior to the cartridge being attached to the image forming device, and wherein the second time period is a period of time during which the cartridge is attached to the image forming device, as claimed in dependent claim 9.
Regarding dependent claim 10, the closest prior art of record, namely, Nakano Takatoshi et al., discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the outputting process comprises at least one of: an output value recording process recording the output value in a recording portion of the cartridge; and a transmitting process transmitting the output value to an external device via a communication network, as recited in dependent claim 10.
Regarding dependent claim 11, the closest prior art of record, namely, Nakano Takatoshi et al., discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the outputting process comprises: an output value recording process recording the output value in a recording portion of the cartridge; and a current time recording process periodically recording a current time in the recording portion of the cartridge, as claimed in dependent claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 12, Nakano Takatoshi et al. discloses an image formation system (see figures 1-3 and figures 25-26, and pars 14, 24 and 99, i.e., printing apparatus 1000) comprising: an image forming device (see figures 1-3 and figures 25-26, and pars 14, 24 and 99, i.e., printing apparatus 1000); a cartridge (see figure 3, and pars 24-25, i.e., tank 1003 and see figs. 25-26, i.e., tanks 1003 and 1006) detachably attachable (inherently the tanks can be detachably attachable to refill ink supply and the valves in figures 25-26, indicate the close/open, inherently the tanks can be detachably attachable) to the image forming device, the cartridge being configured to store colorant (i.e., C, M, Y and K, see pars 24-25) to be used for image formation with the image forming device, wherein the image forming device (see figures 1-3 and figures 25-26, and pars 14, 24 and 99, i.e., printing apparatus 1000) comprising: an image formation portion (see figures 1, 2, 3 and 25-26, i.e., print head 3 and see pars 14-15 and 21) configured to form an image on a medium (see figure 1, medium 2, and see par 21) using the colorant stored in the cartridge (see figure 3, and pars 24-25, i.e., tank 1003 and see figs. 25-26, i.e., tanks 1003 and 1006) attached to the image forming device (see figures 1-3 and figures 25-26, and pars 14, 24 and 99, i.e., printing apparatus 1000); and a controller (see figure 2, i.e., controller unit 410) configured to perform: an elapsed time acquisition process acquiring a length of elapsed time in each of a first time period (see pars 75, and 78, and see figures 19-20, printing time Tx) and a second time period (i.e., time Ty); an evaluation value acquisition process acquiring an evaluation value including a first evaluation value (i.e., Vx, see fig. 19 and see pars 75-76) for the first time period (Tx) and a second evaluation value (i.e., Vy, see figure 20 and pars 77-78) for the second time period (Ty), each of the first evaluation value (Vx) and the second evaluation value (Vy) specifying a degree of change in a quality of the colorant in the cartridge (1003, 1006) during a corresponding one of the first time period (Tx) and the second time period (Ty) and being based on the length of elapsed time (Tx, Ty) acquired in the elapsed time acquisition process and an ambient environment (see pars 72, 75 and 78, i.e., temperature) of the cartridge (1003, 1006) affecting the quality of the colorant (see figs 17-20 and see pars 72-79, i.e., see figure 17, higher or increase in moisture evaporation rate leads to higher or rises ink viscosity, influencing print quality, and leads to unstable ejection or non-ejection state), the ambient environment (i.e., temperature) in the first time period (Tx) being different from the ambient environment in the second time period (Ty) (see pars 75 and 78 and see table 2); and an outputting process outputting an output value (V) reflecting both the first evaluation value (Vx) and the second evaluation value (Vy) (see par 79 and 0101).
The closest prior art of record, namely, Nakano Takatoshi et al., discussed above, does not disclose, teach or suggest, the cartridge comprising: a recording portion; and an evaluation device, the outputting process comprising: an output value recording process recording the output value in the recording portion of the cartridge; and a current time recording process periodically recording a current time in the recording portion of the cartridge, wherein the evaluation device is configured to perform: a second elapsed time acquisition process acquiring a length of elapsed time in a third time period based on the current time recorded in the recording portion of the cartridge, the third time period being a period of time after the cartridge is detached from the image forming device; a second evaluation value acquisition process acquiring a third evaluation value for the third time period, the third evaluation value specifying a degree of change in a quality of the colorant in the cartridge during the third time period and being based on the length of elapsed time acquired in the second elapsed time acquisition process; and a determination process determining whether the cartridge is reusable on the basis of the third evaluation value acquired in the second evaluation value acquisition process and the output value recorded in the recording portion of the cartridge, as recited in independent claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakano et al. (US 2018/0001623 A1) teaches a printing apparatus can suppress defective ejection and wasteful ink consumption (see abstract), a tank (1003, 1006), moisture evaporation rate vs ink viscosity (see figure 17) and evaporation amount calculation (see figures 19 and 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOV POPOVICI whose telephone number is (571)272-4083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am- 4:30 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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. 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.
/DOV POPOVICI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681