DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the liquid near a bottom surface” and “the liquid near a liquid surface” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokota et al. (2010/0085396).
Regarding claim 1, Yokota teaches a degassing device which removes air dissolved in a liquid under a pressure decreased atmosphere, the degassing device comprising:
a liquid tank (fig. 9, item 120) in which the liquid is stored (see fig. 9) to be supplied to a recording head (see fig. 9);
a pressure decreasing device which decreases pressure in the liquid tank (fig. 9, item 204126/128);
a circulation flow pass (fig. 9, item 200) which communicates different positions of the liquid tank (see fig. 9);
a circulation device (fig. 9, item 204) which circulates the liquid through the circulation flow pass (see fig. 9);
a dissolved gas amount measuring device ([0129], note the dissolved oxygen meter measures disclosed oxygen throughout the whole system and therefore in the tank) which measures an amount of dissolved gas of the liquid in the liquid tank ([0129]); and
a control device (fig. 6, item 10) which controls the circulation device in accordance with the amount of dissolved gas measured by the dissolved gas amount measuring device ([0129]) such that the liquid near a bottom surface of the liquid tank where the amount of the dissolved gas is large is replaced with the liquid near a liquid surface of the liquid tank where the amount of dissolved gas is small, and the liquid surface of the liquid is exposed to pressure decreased atmosphere to remove the air dissolved in the liquid near the liquid surface (see fig. 9, Note that pressure decreased atmosphere is provided by 126/128. Note that liquid is circulated from the bottom of the tank to the top of the tank).
Regarding claim 6, Yokota teaches an inkjet recording apparatus comprising: the degassing device according to claim 1; and a recording head which ejects the liquid degassed by the degassing device (see fig. 9).
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) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Bretmersky (2006/0090538).
Regarding claim 2, Yokota teaches the degassing device according to claim 1. Yokota does not teach wherein both bubbles and temperature are measured to obtain flow characteristics of a liquid. Bretmersky teaches a temperature measuring device which measures a temperature of the liquid in the liquid tank, and the control device controls the circulation device in accordance with a gas saturation degree corresponding to the amount of the dissolved gas measured by the dissolved gas amount measuring device and the temperature measured by the temperature measuring device (Bretmersky, see fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use temperature as well as bubble concentration, as disclosed by Bretmersky, in the device disclosed by Yokota because doing so would allow for even more precise monitoring of bubble and liquid characteristics, thereby facilitating more effective circulation.
Regarding claim 3, Yokota in view of Bretmersky teaches the degassing device according to claim 2, wherein the control device controls a flow rate of the circulation device in accordance with the gas saturation degree (Yokota, [0129]).
Regarding claim 4, Yokota in view of Bretmersky teaches the degassing device according to claim 2, wherein the control device stops the circulation device when the gas saturation degree reaches a target value (Yokota, [0129]).
Regarding claim 5, Yokota in view of Bretmersky teaches the degassing device according to claim 2, wherein the circulation device is a circulation pump (Yokota, see fig. 9), and a voltage value supplied to the circulation pump is determined to be higher as the gas saturation degree is higher (Yokota, [0129], see fig. 9, Note that the pump is operated in circulation only when bubbles are detected, and thus the voltage during circulation is non-zero, and the voltage when no bubbles are detected is zero).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights