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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species A, in the reply filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is moot because the invention and species have been rejoined.
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product (see below). Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claim 13, directed to the process of using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Furthermore, claims 8-11, contain the allowable limitations of an allowable claim.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on January 14, 2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claims 1-13 will be examined on the merits.
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: “determination unit” in claims 1, 8 and 9.
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.
Regarding the "determination unit" language, applicant appears to have met the limitations set forth in MPEP § 2181, and examiner has turned to the specification for clarification. In the specification, applicant discloses the “determination unit" as comprising a control unit configured to execute a program stored in the memory and that the control unit is configured as a circuit including a: one or more processors that execute various processes in accordance with a computer program, β: one or more dedicated hardware circuits that execute at least some of the various processes, or γ: a combination thereof. The hardware circuit is, for example, an application specific integrated circuit. The processor includes a CPU and memory, such as RAM and ROM, and the memory stores program codes or instructions configured to cause the CPU to perform processes. The memory, in other words, a computer-readable medium, includes any readable medium that can be accessed by a general purpose or dedicated computer (see Published Application paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Equivalent structures may include those that perform the function specified in the claim, structures that are not excluded by any specific definition provided in the specification for an equivalent, or is a structural equivalent of the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2183.
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.
Claims 2-6 are 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 term “large” in claims 2, 3 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected for depending on rejected claims 3 and 5, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 7-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0274660 to Hamamoto et al.
Hamamoto discloses a cleaning liquid supplying apparatus that includes a first reservoir unit configured to store a cleaning liquid (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#61, paragraph [0063]); a second reservoir unit of a pressure accumulation type configured to form an air reservoir inside when the second reservoir unit stores the cleaning liquid (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#62, paragraph [0063]; a supply flow path through which the cleaning liquid stored in the first reservoir unit is delivered to the second reservoir unit (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#63, paragraph [0063]); a pump provided in the supply flow path (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#66, paragraph [0063]); a return flow path through which the cleaning liquid stored in the second reservoir unit is discharged to the first reservoir unit (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#74, paragraph [0073]); a flow path valve provided in the return flow path (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#77, paragraph [0073]); an atmospheric relief valve configured to open the second reservoir unit to an atmosphere (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#76, 78, paragraphs [0072], [0077]); a control unit configured to control the pump, the flow path valve and the atmospheric relief valve and control pressure accumulation and accumulated pressure release in the second reservoir unit (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#17); a plurality of cleaning liquid ejecting units configured to eject the cleaning liquid stored in the second reservoir unit (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#47); a pressure detection unit configured to determine abnormality in an amount of air in the second reservoir unit (see Hamamoto Fig. 5, ref.#71); and wherein the first reservoir unit is provided at a position lower than a position of the second reservoir unit in a gravity direction (see Hamamoto Fig. 5 disclosing that first reservoir unit 61 is lower than second reservoir unit 62).
The cited prior art does not disclose a method or a determination unit configured to determine an abnormality in an amount of air in the second reservoir unit, based on an amount of change in the pressure per unit time wherein when the determination unit determines that the amount of air is abnormal, after the cleaning liquid stored in the second reservoir unit is discharged to the first reservoir unit until a liquid level of the cleaning liquid stored in the second reservoir unit reaches a reference liquid level, the control unit causes the cleaning liquid to be delivered from the first reservoir unit again.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714