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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the “suction pump” within paragraph [0028] of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the “suction pump” within paragraph [0028] of the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masanobu (JP 2019025741 A) in view of Takeshi et al. (JP 2006116761 A) and Fumiyoshi (JP 2007196610 A).
Regarding claim 1, Masanobu teaches an ink supplying mechanism (Figure 1 displays the “inkjet recording device 100” described in paragraph [0014].) comprising:
an ink container containing ink (Figure 5 displays an “ink pack 76” that contains “ink 22”.);
a sub tank storing the ink supplied from the ink container (Figure 5 displays a “sub ink tank (supply liquid tank 50)” that receives ink from the “ink pack 76” for storage described in paragraph [0026].);
a main channel being extended to a downward direction from a lower face of the sub tank and flowing the ink between the ink container and the sub tank (Figure 5 displays the “ink supply tube 75” connected to the “sub ink tank (supply liquid tank) 50” that goes downward from the bottom side of the “sub ink tank 50” towards the “ink pack 76” described in paragraph [0027].);
a branched channel being subjected to hydraulic head pressure of the ink stored in the sub tank in order to supply the ink to a recording head (Figure 5 displays an “ink supply tube 70” that sends the “ink 22” from the “sub ink tank 50” to the “recording head 17” with the help from a “purge pump 72” described in paragraph [0026].);
Masanobu fails to teach the branched channel being branched from the middle of the main channel.
However, Takeshi teaches the branched channel being branched from the middle of the main channel (Takeshi paragraphs [0036]-[0037] describes a "branch point 31 0" found in the middle of the "ink supply path 300" that allows the "ink circulation path 400" to branch out from the "ink supply path 300".).
Masanobu and Takeshi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming apparatus with an ink supplying mechanism. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink supplying mechanism taught by Masanobu to also apply a branching channel/path to have a branching point in the middle of the main channel/path taught by Takeshi. This would have been done for the purpose of simplifying the configuration of the supplying mechanism in the image forming apparatus (Takeshi, paragraphs [0007][0008]).
Masanobu and Takeshi fail to teach a suction pump being provided between the ink container and the sub tank in the main channel, and sucking the ink from the ink container for supplying the ink to the main channel; and a supplying pump being connected with the branched channel, and filling the ink from the main channel for supplying the ink to the recording head.
However, Fumiyoshi teaches a suction pump being provided between the ink container and the sub tank in the main channel, and sucking the ink from the ink container for supplying the ink to the main channel (Figure 1 displays the “first pump 22” disposed in the middle of the “first tube 14”, between the “main tank 12” and the “sub tank 16”, to supply “supply ink and cleaning liquid” from the “main tank 12” to the “sub tank 16” as described in paragraph [0034].); and a supplying pump being connected with the branched channel, and filling the ink from the main channel for supplying the ink to the recording head (Figure 1 displays the “second pump 24” disposed in the middle of the “second tube 18”, between the “sub tank 16” and the “ink head 20”, to supply “supply ink and cleaning liquid” from the “sub tank 16” to the “ink head 20” as described in paragraph [0035].).
Modified Masanobu and Fumiyoshi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an ink jet printer. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink supplying mechanism taught by Masanobu to also apply taught by a suction pump being provided between the ink container and the sub tank in the main channel, and sucking the ink from the ink container for supplying the ink to the main channel; and a supplying pump being connected with the branched channel, and filling the ink from the main channel for supplying the ink to the recording head to also apply a suction pump being provided between the ink container and the sub tank in the main channel, and sucking the ink from the ink container for supplying the ink to the main channel; and a supplying pump being connected with the branched channel, and filling the ink from the main channel for supplying the ink to the recording head taught by Fumiyoshi. This would have been done for the purpose of transferring ink or cleaning liquid between the main tank and the sub tank and between the sub tank and the ink head (Fumiyoshi, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Masanobu, Takeshi, and Fumiyoshi teaches the ink supplying mechanism according to claim 1, Masanobu further discloses wherein the suction pump causes the ink to be supplied from the ink container via the main channel (Figure 5 displays a "pump 77" that helps supply the ink from the "ink pack 76" to the "sub ink tank 50".).
Masanobu fails to teach the branched channel is arranged between the sub tank and the suction pump.
However, Takeshi teaches the branched channel is arranged between the sub tank and the suction pump (Figure 5 displays the "branching point 310" to be between the "sub tank 202" and the "suction pump 206" of the "ink supply path 300".).
Masanobu and Takeshi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming apparatus with an ink supplying mechanism. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink supplying mechanism taught by Masanobu to also apply the branched channel is arranged between the sub tank and the suction pump taught by Takeshi. This would have been done for the purpose of controlling the flow and direction of the ink (Takeshi, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Masanobu, Takeshi, and Fumiyoshi teaches the ink supplying mechanism according to claim 1.
Masanobu fails to teach a restraining member that restricts ink exchange between the sub tank and the branched channel without changing the hydraulic head pressure between the sub tank and the branched channel.
However, Takeshi teaches a restraining member that restricts ink exchange between the sub tank and the branched channel without changing the hydraulic head pressure between the sub tank and the branched channel (Figure 5 displays the "first on-off valve 208" that controls whether the ink can flow between the "sub tank 200" and the branching point described in paragraph [0012]).
Masanobu and Takeshi are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming apparatus with an ink supplying mechanism. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink supplying mechanism taught by Masanobu to also apply a restraining member that restricts ink exchange between the sub tank and the branched channel without changing the hydraulic head pressure between the sub tank and the branched channel taught by Takeshi. This would have been done for the purpose of controlling the flow and direction of the ink (Takeshi, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Masanobu, Takeshi, and Fumiyoshi teaches the ink supplying mechanism according to claim 1, Masanobu further discloses an image forming apparatus (Figure 1 displays the "inkjet recording apparatus 100" described in paragraph [0014].) comprising: the ink supplying mechanism according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masanobu (JP 2019025741 A) in view of Takeshi et al. (JP 2006116761 A) and Fumiyoshi (JP 2007196610 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeshima et al. (US 12304215 B2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Masanobu, Takeshi, and Fumiyoshi teaches the ink supplying mechanism according to claim 1 further comprising: Masanobu further discloses a level sensor that detects a level of a liquid surface of the ink stored in the sub tank (Figure 5 displays a "detection sensor 80" for detecting the liquid level of the ink described in paragraph [0029]), wherein the level sensor is com posed of a movable sensor equipped with a float floating on the liquid surface away from an inner wall face of the sub tank, (Figure 7 displays the "detection sensor 80" including a "float 81" described in paragraph [0035] on the surface of the "ink 22" that moves up and down according to the amount of in the "sub ink tank 50".)
Modified Masanobu fails to teach the movable sensor also has a movable part provided at a position not in contact with the ink to move the float or a fixed sensor equipped with a capacitance sensor, a photo interrupter or an electrode type level sensor provided at a position not in contact with the ink.
However, Maeshima teaches the movable sensor also has a movable part provided at a position not in contact with the ink to move the float or a fixed sensor equipped with a capacitance sensor, a photo interrupter or an electrode type level sensor provided at a position not in contact with the ink (Figure 3 displays the "float 62" being moved on and supported by a "turning shaft 63" which is above the "upper limit level L2" of the liquid level of the ink, described in column 5 lines 43-61, and therefore not in contact with the ink.).
Modified Masanobu and Maeshima are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming apparatus with an ink supplying mechanism. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink supplying mechanism taught by Masanobu to also apply the movable sensor also has a movable part provided at a position not in contact with the ink to move the float taught by Maeshima. This would have been done for the purpose of preventing the ink from sticking to the movable part that allows the float to move (Maeshima, column 5, lines 53-54).
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 NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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) 272-5960. 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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights