DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-18 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.
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.
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: “portion” in all claims.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim appears to depend from both of claims 6 and 17. Further, claim 20 recites a depth direction, but it is believed that the “first direction” recites in claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, is analogous to the depth direction. Correction is required.
Because claim 21 depends from claim 20, it is also rejected on this basis.
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) 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (8,376,509) in view of Forcada Pardo et al. (11,446,942).
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches a maintenance unit configured to be detachably mounted on a liquid discharge apparatus including a discharge portion that performs printing by discharging a liquid from a nozzle to a medium placed on a support surface when the printing is not performed (note that the preamble is not being taken to be limiting because it does not give essential structure to the claim), the maintenance unit comprising:
a base portion (fig. 2, bottom portion of shuttle 6) having a bottom surface placed on the support surface (see figs. 1-11, surface on which shuttle is placed) when the maintenance unit is mounted to the discharge apparatus (see figs. 1-11_;
a space (fig. 2, space formed by lip of cap 18 on nozzle surface during capping) forming portion configured to form a space in which the nozzle is open, the space forming portion being held by the base portion (see fig. 2); and
a depressurizing portion (fig. 2, portion deeper in cap than lip portion) configured to depressurize the space (col. 2, lines 58-65, note that the bottom of the cap, when attached to a pump, facilitates the depressurizing of the interior of the cap), the depressurizing portion being attached to the base portion (see fig. 2. Note that “depressurizing portion” has not been defined with any specificity, and thus any portion aiding in such a depressurization can be considered a depressurizing portion).
Wong does not teach a first detected portion and a second detected portion each being configured to be detected by a detection sensor provided by the liquid discharge apparatus, the first detected portion and the second detected portion being provided on the base portion at a distance from each other in a first direction. Forcada Pardo teaches a sensor for detecting the mounting or absence of a maintenance unit (Forcada Pardo, see fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a sensing device of the type disclosed by Forcada Pardo to the device of Wong because doing so would allow for the controller to know a position of the maintenance unit at any time.
Note that, for purposes of the rejection, all portions of the maintenance unit can be considered “detected portions” as the entire maintenance unit is detected. Further, the claim does not recite that the detected portions are detected by separate sensors or at different times. Further, any two arbitrary “detected portions” can be selected to sandwich the spacing forming portion so that the space forming portion is located between the first detected portion and the second detected portion in the first direction.
Regarding claim 13, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 1, wherein the depressurizing portion is located between the space forming portion and the second detected portion in the first direction (see claim 1 rejection, Again, note that any of the claimed “portions” can be mapped to any portions of Wong’s maintenance station to meet the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 14, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 1, wherein upper surfaces of the first detected portion and the second detected portion are located above the space forming portion and the depressurizing portion when the maintenance unit is mounted to the discharge apparatus (see claim 1 rejection, Again, note that any of the claimed “portions” can be mapped to any portions of Wong’s maintenance station to meet the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 15, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 1, wherein the space forming portion is located above the depressurizing portion when the maintenance unit is mounted to the discharge apparatus (see claim 1 rejection).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Forcada Pardo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN-109633126A).
Regarding claim 3, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 1. Wong in view of Forcada Pardo does not teach an operation portion configured to manually drive the depressurizing portion, wherein the space is depressurized when the operating portion is moved in a direction away from the space forming portion. Zhang teaches manually depressurizing a container with a syringe pump to remove waste liquid (Zhang, about halfway through specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a manually operated syringe pump disclosed by Zhang for the electrically operated tube pump disclosed by Wong in view of Forcada Pardo because doing so would reduce the number of motors required for operation of Wong in view of Forcada Pardo’s printer. Note that a syringe pump would meet the newly added limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 3. Wong in view of Forcada Pardo does wherein the depressurizing portion is a syringe pump including an outer pipe and a pusher capable of sliding in the outer pipe, and having a pump chamber formed between the outer pipe and the pusher. Zhang teaches manually depressurizing a container with a syringe pump to remove waste liquid (Zhang, about halfway through specification. Note that a syringe pump operates in the claimed manner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a manually operated syringe pump disclosed by Zhang for the electrically operated tube pump disclosed by Wong in view of Forcada Pardo because doing so would reduce the number of motors required for operation of Wong in view of Forcada Pardo’s printer. Note that a syringe pump would meet the newly added limitation.
Upon combination of Zhang’s syringe pump with the maintenance unit of Wong in view of Forcada Pardo, the resultant device would have the pump chamber coupled to the space forming portion by a first tube, the operating portion is attached to the pusher, and a volume of the pump chamber increases when the operating portion is moved in the direction away from the space forming portion in the first direction.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Forcada Pardo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coma Vives et al. (9,676,195).
Regarding claim 6, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the liquid discharge apparatus comprising: the discharge portion. Wong in view of Forcada Pardo does not teach a mounting portion on which the maintenance unit according to claim 1 is detachably mounted. Coma Vives teaches this (Coma Vives, see fig. 3, Note maintenance unit 12 is mountable in mounting portion 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the maintenance unit disclosed by Hirasawa detachable, as disclosed by Coma Vives, because doing so would allow for replacement of the maintenance unit after its useful life.
Regarding claim 8, Hirasawa in view of Coma Vives teaches the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 6, further comprising: a holding portion that holds a wiping unit configured to wipe the discharge portion to be attachable and detachable, wherein the mounting portion is the holding portion from which the wiping unit is removed (Coma Vives, fig. 3, Note that the mounting portion holds the whole maintenance unit, which holds a wiper, the maintenance unit and wiper being removable).
Claim(s) 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Forcada Pardo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagashima et al. (2021/0078333).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the maintenance unit according to claims 1 and 6, respectively. Wong in view of Forcada Pardo does not teach first and second positioning holes mating with first and second projections in a mating arrangement on opposite sides of a mountable item. Nagashima teaches this (Nagashima, see figs. 5, 7, Note projections 53 and positioning holes 150). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the mating projections/holes arrangement disclosed by Nagashima to the support surface and the maintenance unit disclosed by Wong in view of Forcada Pardo because doing so would allow for the proper alignment of the support surface and the maintenance unit upon mounting. Further, it would be obvious to add the projections and holes to either the support surface and the maintenance unit or vice versa because this would not change the operation of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 21, Wong in view of Forcada Pardo teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 20, further comprising a supporting area for supporting the medium on the supporting surface, the supporting area is located between the first positioning hole and the second positioning hole in the depth direction (Wong, see figs. 1-3).
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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