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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because step S02 of FIG. 3 has a typographical error – i.e. “REQUIRMENT” should be “REQUIREMENT”. Also, note that steps S01 (“DOES PRINT INPUT”) and S09 (“DOES SWITCH INK TANK”) do not appear to be grammatically correct. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As amended, Claim 1 now recites the control device switching the liquid tank to be connected to the recording head “based on tank connected to the recording head”, but the disclosure does not teach switching the liquid tank based on both an amount of dissolved gas and an amount of remaining ink, instead only requiring (at least) one of the two. Applicant states that support for the amendment is found in paragraphs 0042 and 0044 of the specification, but please note that those paragraphs teach determining whether the ink tank connected satisfies “The requirement” and not “The requirements” – also note that step S02 in fig. 3, which corresponds to said paragraphs, reads “Does connected ink tank satisfy requirment [sic]”. Paragraph 0044 recites that ““The requirement” has two points: an amount of dissolved oxygen of the ink does not exceed a target value during the performing of the print job, and an amount of remaining ink is an amount required to complete the print job” but taken into consideration with the drawings and rest of the disclosure, it reads as meaning only one of the two has to be met for the apparatus to perform its intended functions. Note that the rest of the disclosure (e.g., Abstract and paragraphs 0005, 0020, 0047, and 0052-0054) teaches only one of an amount of dissolved gas and an amount of remaining ink in the liquid tank being required for the control device to switch the liquid tank to be connected to the recording head. Also, please note that the last sentence of paragraph 0048 recites “when two or more ink tanks meet the target values of the amount of dissolved oxygen and the amount of remaining ink, the ink tank having a small amount of dissolved oxygen or the ink tank having a large amount of remaining ink may be selected” (emphasis added), showing that although both an amount of dissolved gas and an amount of remaining ink in the liquid tank connected to the recording head may meet their target, only one of the two is required. Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and include all of its limitations and are therefore rejected the same way.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanoue et al. (US 2019/0344578 – hereinafter Tanoue) in view of Takano et al. (US 2022/0371330 – hereinafter Takano.)
Regarding claim 1,
Tanoue discloses an inkjet recording apparatus [as seen in fig. 1] comprising:
a plurality of liquid tanks [27 in fig. 2] in which a liquid is stored [paragraph 0040];
a circulation flow pass [35/37/45 in fig. 2] provided in each of the liquid tanks and communicating different positions of each of the liquid tanks [each tank has a flow pass [branch pipes 35/37/45 are connected by joint 43 in fig. 2];
a circulation device [47 in fig. 2] which circulates the liquid through the circulation flow passes [paragraph 0043; the pump moves/circulates ink through the ink feeding device];
a recording head [19 in fig. 1] which ejects the liquid supplied from the liquid tanks [paragraph 0036]; and
a control device [65 in fig. 2] which switches the liquid tank to be connected to the recording head based on an amount of remaining liquid in the liquid tank connected to the recording head [paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0056-0060; as seen in figs. 3-5; also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Tanoue teaches a degassing module [61 in fig. 3; paragraph 0046], but fails to expressly disclose said degassing module acting as a pressure decreasing device which decreases pressure in each of the liquid tanks, and wherein the control device switches the liquid tank to be connected to the recording head also based on an amount of dissolved gas in the liquid tank connected to the recording head.
However, Takano discloses an inkjet recording apparatus [1000 in fig. 1] comprising:
a plurality of liquid tanks [210/220/290 in fig. 7] in which a liquid is stored [paragraph 0093];
a pressure decreasing device [deaerator 406 fig. 5] which decreases pressure in each of the liquid tanks [paragraph 0085 recites “A deaeration type of the deaerator 406 may be any one of a pressure decrease type that decreases the pressure to remove gas”];
a circulation flow pass [283-286 in fig. 7 / 402 in figs. 5 and 7] provided in each of the liquid tanks and communicating different positions of each of the liquid tank [as seen in figs. 5-7];
a circulation device [202 / 203 in fig. 7] which circulates the liquid through the circulation flow passes [paragraphs 0093-0094];
a recording head [100 in fig. 2] which ejects the liquid supplied from the liquid tanks [paragraph 0089]; and
a control device [500 in fig. 5] which causes the liquid to be circulated between the liquid tanks based on an amount of dissolved gas and an amount of remaining liquid in the liquid tank connected to the recording head [paragraph 0086 teaches the amount of liquid and the amount of dissolved gas being correlated.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Tanoue invention to include means for decreasing pressure in the liquid tanks and for circulating the liquid between liquid tanks and a printhead based on an amount of dissolved gas and an amount of remaining ink as taught by Takano for the purpose of ensuring a stable, controlled flow of ink to the printhead and preventing nozzle clogs, resulting in a more precise and consistent printing operation and quality.
Regarding claim 2,
In the obvious combination, Tanoue discloses wherein the control device switches the liquid tank connected to the recording head when it is predicted that at least one of the amount of dissolved gas and the amount of remaining liquid in the liquid tank connected to the recording head will not meet target values during performing of a print job [as seen in fig. 3; also, note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 3,
In the obvious combination, Tanoue further discloses wherein the control device selects the liquid tank connected to the recording head based on at least one of the amount of dissolved gas and the amount of remaining liquid in the liquid tanks [paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0056-0060; as seen in figs. 3-5; please note that the limitation recites “at least one of” and therefore only one option is needed for the claim to be met as written.]
Regarding claim 4,
In the obvious combination, Takano discloses wherein
the control device performs a print job when the amount of the dissolved gas in the liquid tank connected to the recording head does not exceed a target value and the amount of remaining ink is an amount capable of completing the print job [paragraph 0086 teaches the amount of liquid and the amount of dissolved gas being correlated and the apparatus eliminating bubbles in the circulation path so that they don’t reach the printhead (therefore making the print job possible); as applied to the Tanoue reference],
whereas Tanoue discloses wherein the control device switches the liquid tank connected to the recording head when the amount of the dissolved gas in the liquid tank connected to the recording head exceeds the target value or when the amount of remaining ink is less than the amount capable of completing the print job [paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0056-0060; as seen in figs. 3-5; please note that the limitation recites "one of" and therefore only one option is needed for the claim to be met as written.]
Conclusion
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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights