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 .
This office action is in response to applicants arguments dated 11 February 2026. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. Claim 1 have been amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2023-081314 was received on 10 June 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 16 May 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoo (US PGPub 2022/0032613 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Yokoo discloses a liquid ejection device (Fig. 8; liquid discharging apparatus 1) comprising:
a carriage (Fig. 8; carriage 71; ¶0081) whose internal space is partitioned into a first space and a second space by a partition plate (Figs. 9-11; first space within head unit 30; second space outside head unit 30 and within case 81; ¶0081-0085);
an ejection head that is provided in the first space and that ejects liquid (Fig. 9; discharge head 300; ¶0049); and
a control substrate that is provided in the second space and that controls drive of the ejection head (Figs. 9-11, relay circuit board 21; ¶0085-0086), wherein the control substrate (21) is connected to the ejection head (300) via a substrate-to-substrate connector (connectors 84 and 86; ¶0085-0086; Figs. 9-11) and the partition plate (see Fig. 12 below; Figs. 9-11; ¶0088+), as viewed from a direction in which the control substrate (21) is connected to the ejection head (left to right direction in Fig. 9 below), is shaped such that at least one region of the following regions is cut out:
1) a region where the control substrate is located (See Fig. 9 below, bottom of partition plate is cut out providing the region of the control substrate 21),
2) a region where the substrate-to-substrate connector is located (84, 85, 86 connectors pass through the partition plate at the cutout as shown), and
3) a region where the ejection head is located, is cut out (Fig. 9; cutout for the ejection head 300 with the partition plate between the control substrate and ejection head 300).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo.
With regard to Claim 2, Yokoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition plate is non metallic. However, Yokoo discloses wherein the (printhead) case is injection-molded from a resin material, the case (340) being the case of the ejection head (¶0136). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the partition plate (cover of the carriage unit) to be formed of the same material as the head for aesthetics, design considerations and heat dissipation similarities.
With regard to Claim 3, Yokoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the partition is resinous, however as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and Yokoo discloses the ejection head case made of a resin material (¶0136).
Claims 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo, in view of Hatta et al. (US PGPub 2022/0314628 A1), hereinafter Hatta.
With regard to Claim 4, Yokoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the carriage has a fan that generates airflow.
The secondary reference of Hatta discloses wherein the carriage has a fan that generates airflow (Fig. 5; fan 120 ¶0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fan of Hatta, with the carriage of Yokoo, in order to cool the control substrate, as taught by Hatta (¶0004).
With regard to Claim 5, Yokoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid ejection device has, as the fan, a first fan that draws air from a space outside the carriage into the internal space.
The secondary reference of Hatta discloses wherein the liquid ejection device has, as the fan, a first fan that draws air from a space outside the carriage into the internal space (¶0038; Fig. 5).
With regard to Claim 6, Yokoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the first fan is provided in the second space.
The secondary reference of Hatta discloses wherein the first fan is provided in the second space (space 100; Fig. 5).
With regard to Claim 10, Yokoo further discloses wherein the liquid ejection device has a plurality of the ejection heads (Figs. 10-11) and has a plurality of the control substrates corresponding to each of the ejection heads (Figs. 10-11).
Yokoo discloses where the plurality of ejection heads each has a connection to the relay substrate, but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of control substrates.
The secondary reference of Hatta discloses wherein the liquid ejection device has a plurality of the ejection heads (Fig. 16) and has a plurality of the control substrates (Fig. 16) corresponding to each of the ejection heads (Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of control substrates of Hatta, with the device of Yokoo, in order to have modularity in design, as taught by Hatta (Fig. 16; ¶0046-0054).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoo, in view of Hatta, and further in view of Saito et al. (US PGPub 2020/0130388 A1), hereinafter Saito.
With regard to Claim 7, Yokoo-Hatta does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid ejection device has, as the fan, a second fan that exhausts air from the internal space to a space outside the carriage.
The tertiary reference of Saito discloses wherein the liquid ejection device has, as the fan, a second fan that exhausts air from the internal space to a space outside the carriage (Fig. 4; fan 70; ¶0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fan of Saito, with the combination of Yokoo-Hatta, in order to efficiently draw heat generated by the driving board to the outside, as taught by Saito (¶0065).
With regard to Claim 8, Yokoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the second fan is provided in the second space.
The secondary reference of Hatta discloses wherein the second fan is provided in the second space (space 100; Fig. 5).
The tertiary reference of Saito discloses wherein the second fan is provided in the second space (Figs. 3-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability of Claim 9 is that applicants claimed invention includes a liquid ejection device wherein the second fan is provided in the first space. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability of Claim 11 is that applicants claimed invention includes a liquid ejection device wherein the second space is partitioned into a third space and a fourth space, and in the third space, a first control substrate as the control substrate, which is connected to a first ejection head among the ejection heads, is provided, and in the fourth space, a second control substrate as the control substrate, which is connected to a second ejection head among the ejection heads, is provided. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-9, filed 11 February 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection applied to claim 1 in this office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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 Rodriguez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853