DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/3/2025.
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 1 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 wherein the extension channel is closer to the second cavity than the piston. However, as shown in Figure 2 of the present application, if the extension channel is 131 and the piston is 109 including the wide-diameter part contacting the elastic component 110 as well as the shaft part of 109 inserted through channel 123, it cannot be said that the extension channel 131 is closer to the second cavity because the piston shaft portion appears to be located in the second cavity. Further, if both of the large and small-diameter portions of item 109 are considered “the piston,” it would also seem that the entirely of the piston cannot be said to be received in the through channel, as claimed, because part of the piston is in the second cavity.
Further, the claim recites that the second end of the piston abuts the film, but it would appear from the figures that the piston abuts the reinforcing portion, which in turn abuts the film, and the piston itself does not abut the film.
Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim 11 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 a barrier wall between the first cavity and the first pipeline, but it appears from figure 2 of the present application that the first cavity 104 and the first pipeline 106 communicate with each other, and thus no wall appears to be between them. Further, as far as Examiner can tell, it seems the first recess and through hole recited in the claim are directed to the through channel described in claim 1. In other words, it is not clear as to whether the claimed “first recess” and “through hole” are different elements than the claimed “through channel” of claim 1. If they are not directed to the same elements, it is not clear how both of the through hole and first recess of claim 11 and the through channel of claim 1 can both exist given the figures of the present application. Further, the claim recites wherein first and second guide walls are at a position, but two distinct walls cannot be at a single position.
Clarification is required.
Because claim 12 depends from claim 11, it is also rejected on this basis.
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, 3, 5, 6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moriguchi et al. (9,315,041)
Regarding claim 1, Moriguchi teaches an ink reservoir for a printhead, comprising:
a main body (fig. 1, housing of all shown components);
a first valve (fig. 4, item 27); and
a film (fig. 4, item 24); wherein
the main body comprises a first cavity (fig. 4, most upstream portion of inlet 25), a second cavity (fig. 4, item 21), a first pipeline (fig. 4, downstream portion of inlet 25, area 22, channel 29), a first inlet (fig. fig. 4, downstream portion of 25 communicating with area 22) and a first outlet (fig. 4, item 26);
the first cavity is located at a first side (fig. 4, right side) of the main body;
the second cavity is located at a second side (fig. 4, left side) of the main body opposite to the first side of the main body;
the first cavity is communicated with the second cavity through the first pipeline (see fig. 4);
the first inlet is communicated with the first cavity (see fig. 4);
the first outlet is communicated with the second cavity (fig. 4), and is configured for mounting the printhead (see fig. 1),
the first valve is arranged in the first pipeline (see fig. 4), and comprises a piston (fig. 4, item 27) and an elastic component (fig. 4, item 28); and
the elastic component is configured to apply a first force to the piston in a direction from the first side of the main body toward the second side of the main body (see fig. 4), such that the first pipeline is blocked by a first end (fig. 4, left side of portion 27) of the piston; and
the film is provided at the second side for sealing the second cavity (see fig. 4);
a second end of the piston (fig. 4) abuts against the film; and
the film is configured to apply a second force to the piston in a direction from the second side of the main body toward the first side of the main body as a pressure in the second cavity decreases, so as to open the first pipeline (see fig. 4), and
the first pipeline comprises a through channel (fig. 4, item 22/29) and an extension channel (fig. 4, downstream portion of channel 29 communicating with 22), wherein
the through channel penetrates through the main body in the first direction from the first side of the main body toward the second side of the main body (fig. 4);
a first end of the extension channel is communicated with the first cavity, and a second end of the extension channel is communicated with the through channel (fig. 4, note that, as defined above, the limitation is met); and
both the piston and the elastic component are entirely received in the through channel and arranged out of the extension channel, and the extension channel is closer to the second cavity that both the piston and the elastic component (see fig. 4, Note that 27, 28 are entirely within through channel.
Regarding claim 3, Moriguchi teaches the ink reservoir of claim 1, wherein the main body further comprises a barrier wall provided between the first cavity and the first pipeline; and the barrier wall is configured to reduce a cross-sectional area of a communicating opening between the first cavity and the first pipeline (see fig. 4, Note that “configured to reduce” has not been defined in any way. A static wall would not seem able to actively “reduce” an area. The walls of the downstream portion of the inlet are being taken to be the barrier wall).
Regarding claim 5, Moriguchi teaches the ink reservoir of claim 3, wherein against the first end of the piston at the first side of the main body (see fig. 4); and the second end of the piston passes through the through channel to enter the second cavity and abut against the film (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Moriguchi teaches the ink reservoir of claim 1, wherein the film has a reinforcing portion (fig. 4, item 32) is provided at a middle of the film, and the second end of the piston abuts against the reinforcing portion (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Moriguchi teaches all of the limitations (Moriguchi, fig. 4). Note that, given the lack of clarity detailed in the 112 rejection, all limitations are believed to be met.
Regarding claim 12, Moriguchi teaches all of the limitations (Moriguchi, fig. 4). Note that, given the lack of clarity detailed in the 112 rejection, all limitations are believed to be met.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriguchi in view of Tadachi et al. (10,525,719).
Regarding claim 2, Moriguchi teaches the ink reservoir of claim 1. Moriguchi does not teach wherein a filter is provided in the first cavity. Tadachi teaches this (Tadachi, fig. 3, item 5). 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 filter disclosed by Tadachi to the device of Moriguchi because doing so would allow for filtering of ink before ejection.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadachi in view of Kimura (2009/0179974).
Regarding claim 7, Tadachi teaches the ink reservoir of claim 1. Tadachi does not teach a second valve; wherein the second valve is a one-way valve, and is arranged in the first outlet; and the second valve is configured to block the second cavity in a state that the first outlet is not connected to the printhead. Kimura teaches a one-way valve on an outlet portion of an analogous ink reservoir that would operate in the claimed manner (Kimura, [0059], fig. 1, item 38). 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 one-way valve disclosed by Kimura to the outlet portion of Tadachi because doing so would ensure ink would not leak from the reservoir during periods in which the reservoir was not connected to the printhead.
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