DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/26/2026. Applicant traverses on grounds that searching one of the inventions or species would necessarily encompass search for the others. This is incorrect. The control method of claim 12 requires certain notification steps that are found nowhere in the invention according to claims 1-11, and to search both inventions with such differing limitations would result in a serious search burden. Further, Examine maintains that searching for both of a manually operated tube pump and a manually operated syringe pump as applied to the claimed invention would necessitate non-overlapping search, which would result in a serious search burden. The Requirements are maintained.
Because the syringe pump embodiment of claim 4 has been elected and the tube pump of claim 5 has not, claims 9-11, which depend from claim 5, are also withdrawn from examination.
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 8 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 recites “the mounting portion is the holding portion…” It is not understood what this is intended to mean. It would not seem the same component can be claimed with two different names. Clarification 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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirasawa et al. (9,233,543).
Regarding claim 1, Hirasawa teaches a maintenance unit configured to be mounted on a liquid discharge apparatus including a discharge portion that performs printing by discharging a liquid from a nozzle to a medium when the printing is not performed, the maintenance unit comprising:
a space (fig. 4, space formed between cap 63 and nozzle surface 31 during capping) forming portion configured to form a space in which the nozzle is open; and
a depressurizing portion (fig. 4, item 44) configured to depressurize the space.
Regarding claim 2, Hirasawa teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 1, further comprising: a receiving portion (fig. 4, item 81) configured to receive, via the space, the liquid as waste liquid ejected from the nozzle by depressurizing the space by the depressurizing portion (see fig. 4).
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) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa in view of Zhang (CN-109633126A).
Regarding claim 3, Hirasawa teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 1. Hirasawa does not teach an operation portion configured to manually drive the depressurizing 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 Hirasawa because doing so would reduce the number of motors required for operation of Hirasawa’s printer.
Regarding claim 4, Hirasawa teaches the maintenance unit according to claim 1. Hirasawa does not teach wherein the depressurizing portion is a syringe pump. 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 Hirasawa because doing so would reduce the number of motors required for operation of Hirasawa’s printer.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa in view of Coma Vives et al. (9,676,195).
Regarding claim 6, Hirasawa teaches the liquid discharge apparatus comprising: the discharge portion (fig. 4, item 34). Hirasawa 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 7, Hirasawa in view of Coma Vives teaches the liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 6, further comprising: a support portion (Hirasawa, fig. 3, entire printer housing) configured to support the medium at a position facing the discharge portion (Hirasawa, see fig. 3, note that the printer housing supports the medium at its printing position), wherein the mounting portion is provided in the support portion (Coma Vives, fig. 3, Note that the mounting portion is in the printer housing).
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).
Conclusion
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