Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/732,702

LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§112§Other
Filed
Jun 04, 2024
Examiner
RICHMOND, SCOTT A.
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ricoh Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
548 granted / 624 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
55.5%
+15.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 624 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112 §Other
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 of CLAIMS 1 -8 in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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. 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. 2023-093142 was received on 16 July 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 June 2024 have been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed on 04 June 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 § 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 1-10 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Specifically, Claim 1, Line 11 recites “the contact member contactable the lift in response”. This is grammatically incorrect. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same position" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-8 are rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1. 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. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Zwan (US PGPub 2013/0100207 A1). With regard to Claim 1, Van Der Zwan discloses a liquid discharge apparatus (Abstract; Fig. 1) comprising: a liquid discharge head to discharge a liquid in a discharge direction (¶0044-0045; Fig. 1); a head attachment onto which the liquid discharge head is attached (Figs. 1, 7, head module 4; ¶0042-0045); a lift (¶0043, 0049; raising/lowering device 12) to: move the head attachment back and forth in the discharge direction (¶0043); and keep an orientation of the head attachment in a plane orthogonal to the discharge direction (Fig. 1; ¶0043-0045); a contact member (Fig. 4; ball pivot 72; ¶0061) on a side face of the head attachment (Figs. 1, 4; ball pivot 72; ¶0061), the contact member facing the lift (Figs. 1, 4) and having a space with the lift in a width direction orthogonal to the discharge direction (Figs. 1, 4), and the contact member (72) contactable the lift in response to an inclination of the head attachment with respect to the plane (¶0048; 0056-0058). Van Der Zwan does not explicitly disclose the contact member is ”directly” contactable to the lift, however it is clear the contact member is contactable to the lift indirectly through the frame as disclosed and shown, thus the rejection of the limitation is proper based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. With regard to Claim 2, Van Der Zwan further discloses wherein the contact member (Fig. 4; ball pivot 72) projects from the side face of the head attachment (Figs. 1, 4; stop 70; ¶0056-0058) toward the lift (12) in the width direction (Fig. 1; width direction 8). With regard to Claim 4, Van Der Zwan further discloses wherein the contact member has a linear shape (Fig. 4) extending in the discharge direction (Fig. 4, extends linearly in direction 7, 8 and 16). With regard to Claim 5, Van Der Zwan further discloses a holder holding the head attachment (¶0007; 0047-0048, rail system 14; Figs. 5-6), wherein the contact member (72) projects from the side face of the head attachment toward the lift by a projecting amount (Figs. 1, 4), and the contact member contacting the lift restricts deformation of the holder within an allowable range in response to the inclination of the head attachment with respect to the plane (¶0056-0058). Examiner reminds applicant that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). With regard to Claim 6, Van Der Zwan further discloses wherein a center of the head attachment is located at a position different from a rotation center of inclination of the head attachment (See Fig. 6 below). PNG media_image1.png 518 590 media_image1.png Greyscale With regard to Claim 7, Van Der Zwan further discloses wherein a center of the head attachment is located at the same position as a rotation center of inclination of the head attachment (See Fig. 6 below, the center points cross in the middle). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 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 and the rejection under 35 USC 112b is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowance for Claim 3 is that applicants claimed invention includes a liquid discharge apparatus wherein the contact member extends and covers at least a part of the side face of the head attachment in the discharge direction. 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 8 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 and the rejection under 35 USC 112b is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowance for Claim 8 is that applicants claimed invention includes a liquid discharge apparatus wherein the lift includes a stepping motor to move the head attachment back and forth in the discharge direction, and the contact member contacting the lift causes the stepping motor to lose steps and stop being driven. 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. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 04, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §Other (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600151
CUTTER AND METHOD OF SEPARATION FOR SHEETS PRINTED FROM A CONTINUOUS WEB SUSCEPTIBLE OF LONGITUDINAL DIVISIONS AND RELATIVE WEB
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594773
INKJET PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594765
PRINTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589600
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PRINTING ON TILTED PRINT MEDIUM USING PRINTHEAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589603
PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+5.9%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 624 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month