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 .
Priority
Foreign priority papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or 35 U.S.C. § 365(a)-(c) are acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method/apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/09/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claim(s) 1-19 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement is not mandatory and that there would not be an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because Group I and Group II are distinct for their separate status in the art as shown by their different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 08/01/2024 has/have been considered. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The 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 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Ambiguous
In claim 13, the phrase "and a third threshold" makes the claims ambiguous and therefore indefinite. Because the claim fails to sufficiently relate the "third threshold " to the other claim features, the claim is amenable of multiple plausible constructions (claim 13 fails to introduce a first and a second threshold), leaving a person having ordinary skill in the art unable to determine what the Applicant does and does not regard as the invention. See Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1207, *11 (BPAI 2008).
Dependent Claims Too
Dependent claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected claim(s) 13 and in view of the dependence thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190337300 to M Lachmanan (hereinafter “Lachmanan”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6402277 to Monclus et al. (hereinafter “Monclus”).
With respect to claim 1, Lachmanan discloses a printing apparatus configured to print an image by ejecting a liquid onto a printing medium (inkjet printing system (1) FIG. 1), comprising: an electric substrate including a pair of detection terminals including a wiring pattern configured to detect connection and a liquid leak of the electric substrate (sensing leak pad (9) FIG. 5), and an element having a resistance component between the pair of detection terminals (tracks 29 FIG. 5); and one or more processors and/or circuitry which function as: a determination unit configured to determine a connection state of the electric substrate and whether the liquid leak occurs in a portion in which the electric substrate is arranged (the sensor controller (10) to be processed and send an “ink leak signal” output signal to the PLC (3) FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 [0039]-[0053]), based on an obtained voltage between the pair of detection terminals (30a - 30d FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 [0039]-[0053]), a first related to the connection detection of the electric substrate ([0050], [0051] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7), and a second which is a value different from the first and related to the liquid leak ([0052]).
However, Lachmanan fails to specifically use the term:
threshold.
Monclus discloses:
threshold (Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threshold as disclosed by Lachmanan with the method/apparatus of Monclus. The motivation for doing so would have been to better identify a leak and stop the machine. (Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus). Additionally, using thresholds in sensors was common practice in the art at the time of the invention.
With respect to claim 2, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the first threshold is higher than the second threshold ([0050], [0051], [0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 3, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein in a case where the obtained voltage is higher than the first threshold, the determination unit determines that the connection state of the electric substrate has a connection abnormality ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 4, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the connection abnormality is any one of that the electric substrate is not connected, a fitting failure of a connector on the electric substrate occurs, or a wire break of the wiring pattern on the electric substrate occurs ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7).
With respect to claim 5, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein in a case where the obtained voltage is lower than the second threshold, the determination unit determines that the liquid leak occurs in a portion in which the electric substrate is arranged ([0039]-[0067] of Lachmanan and Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 6, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the first threshold is lower than the second threshold ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 7, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein in a case where the obtained voltage is lower than the first threshold, the determination unit determines that the connection state of the electric substrate has a connection abnormality ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 8, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein in a case where the obtained voltage is higher than the second threshold, the determination unit determines that the liquid leak occurs in a portion in which the electric substrate is arranged ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 9, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses further comprising: a notification unit configured to notify of an error in a case where it is determined that the electric substrate has a connection abnormality, or in a case where it is determined that the liquid leak occurs in a portion in which the electric substrate is arranged ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7).
With respect to claim 10, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the notification unit is a display unit configured to display the error ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7).
With respect to claim 11, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the electric substrate is a plurality of the electric substrates arranged in different portions ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Col.7, Lines 4-39 of Monclus)
With respect to claim 12, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses further comprising: a selection switching circuit configured to select the electric substrate to be a target of the determination out of the plurality of the electric substrates ([0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Col.7, Lines 4-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 13, Lachmanan discloses a printing apparatus configured to print an image by ejecting a liquid onto a printing medium (inkjet printing system (1) FIG. 1), comprising: an electric substrate including a first wiring pattern including a pair of detection terminals configured to detect a liquid leak and a second wiring pattern different from the first wiring pattern and configured to detect connection of the electric substrate (sensing leak pad (9) FIG. 5); and one or more processors and/or circuitry which function as: a connection determination unit configured to determine a connection state of the electric substrate by using the second wiring pattern (the sensor controller (10) to be processed and send an “ink leak signal” output signal to the PLC (3) FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 [0039]-[0053]); and a liquid leak determination unit configured to determine whether the liquid leak occurs in a portion in which the electric substrate is arranged based on a voltage value between the pair of detection terminals and a third (30a - 30d, the sensor controller (10) to be processed and send an “ink leak signal” output signal to the PLC (3) FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 [0039]-[0067]).
However, Lachmanan fails to specifically use the term:
threshold.
Monclus discloses:
threshold(Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threshold as disclosed by Lachmanan with the method/apparatus of Monclus. The motivation for doing so would have been to better identify a leak and stop the machine. (Claim 9, Col.7, Lines 24-39 of Monclus). Additionally, using thresholds in sensors was common practice in the art at the time of the invention.
With respect to claim 14, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein in a case where a voltage value between two ends of the second wiring pattern is higher than the third threshold, the connection determination unit determines that the connection state of the electric substrate has a connection abnormality ([0050], [0051], [0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Col.7, Lines 4-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 15, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the connection abnormality is any one of that the electric substrate is not connected, a fitting failure of a connector on the electric substrate occurs, or a wire break of the second wiring pattern on the electric substrate occurs ([0050], [0051], [0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Col.7, Lines 4-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 16, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the second wiring pattern includes an element having a resistance component and is connected to the first wiring pattern (tracks 29, sensing leak pad (9) [0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 of Lachmanan and Col.7, Lines 4-39 of Monclus).
With respect to claim 17, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein the second wiring pattern is connected to a connection destination different from the electric substrate, and the connection determination unit determines the connection state of the electric substrate based on a state of communication with the different connection destination via the second wiring pattern (tracks 29, sensing leak pad (9) [0039]-[0067] FIG. 5 and FIG. 7).
With respect to claim 18, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein in a case where the connection determination unit cannot communicate with the different connection destination, the connection determination unit determines that the electric substrate has a connection abnormality (30a - 30d, the sensor controller (10) to be processed and send an “ink leak signal” output signal to the PLC (3) FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 [0039]-[0067]).
With respect to claim 19, Lachmanan in view of Monclus discloses wherein in a case where a voltage value between the pair of detection terminals is lower than the third threshold, the liquid leak determination unit determines that the liquid leak occurs in a portion in which the electric substrate is arranged (30a - 30d, the sensor controller (10) to be processed and send an “ink leak signal” output signal to the PLC (3) FIG. 5 and FIG. 7 [0039]-[0067] of Lachmanan and Col.7, Lines 4-39 of Monclus).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, whether or not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180361739 to Umeda et al. also discloses using thresholds with a voltage sensor. [0057] Umeda also discloses leak detection, ink leakage detection unit 115 FIG. 9A and 9B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley W Thies whose telephone number is (571)270-5667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am -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, 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.
/BRADLEY W THIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights