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 responsive to the application Nº 18/805,275 filed on August 14th, 2024 in which claims 1-11 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS have been considered.
Drawings
4. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 08/14/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11 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.
7. Claim 1 disclosed “a suppression member”. It is unclear what the suppression member is configured to suppress and how the suppression member performs the suppressing. For examination purposes, the Examiner will construe the suppression member to be any member disposed inside the cap.
8. Claims 2-11 are also rejected as being dependent on independent claim 1.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
10. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
11. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07€ and 714.13.
12. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
13. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/812,280. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are essentially directed to the same subject matter.
14. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/811,255. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are essentially directed to the same subject matter.
15. These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claims 1, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hayakawa et al. (US Pat. Nº 6,481,824).
19. Regarding independent claim 1: Hayakawa et al. disclosed a maintenance device (see Fig. 24) comprising:
a cap (Col. 2, line 48; also see Fig. 24, reference 310) which includes an air supply port (Col. 2, lines 53-55; also see Fig. 24, reference 325 is a port that allows air from outside to enter into cap 310) and an air discharge port (Col. 2, lines 52-53; when the pump is activated, both ink (discharged from the nozzles) and air introduced through the port 325 are discharged through the port 324), and which is to be fitted to a nozzle surface (Col. 18, line 52; also see Fig. 24, reference 307a) of an inkjet head (Col. 17, line 58; also see Fig. 24, reference 307); and
a suppression member which is opposed to the air supply port (Col. 18, line 32; also see Fig. 24, reference 323), and which is provided between the air supply port and the nozzle surface (see Fig. 24), and moreover which is separate from the air supply port and also separate from the nozzle surface (Fig. 24, member 323 is separate from port 325 and from the nozzle forming surface 307a).
20. Regarding claim 9: Hayakawa et al. disclosed the maintenance device according to claim 1, wherein the suppression member is opposed to the air discharge port (see Fig. 24, member 323 is opposed to the port 324).
21. Regarding claim 11: Hayakawa et al. disclosed an inkjet recording apparatus (see Fig. 22) comprising: an inkjet head (Fig. 22, reference 307), and the maintenance device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (US Pat. Nº 6,481,824), in view of Minemura (JP 2007-069450).
25. Regarding claim 2: Hayakawa et al. disclosed the maintenance device according to claim 1.
Hayakawa et al. are silent about wherein the suppression member includes a plurality of through holes which are placed so as not to be opposed to the air supply port, and which are bored through from the air supply port side to the nozzle surface side.
Minemura disclosed a maintenance device (see Fig. 9) comprising a cap (Fig. 9, reference 80) configured to cover the nozzle opening surface of an inkjet head (Fig. 9, reference 30), a suppression member (Fig. 9, reference 90) and at least one port in the cap (Fig. 9, references 240, 241), wherein the suppression member includes a plurality of through holes which are placed so as not to be opposed to the port ([0043], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 9, references 190 which do not oppose the ports 240, 241), and which are bored through from the air supply port side to the nozzle surface side ([0043], lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Minemura with those of Hayakawa et al. by providing through holes in the suppression member in order to maintain the suppression member in position and prevent swelling and rising of the suppression member as disclosed by Minemura in paragraph [0035].
26. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (US Pat. Nº 6,481,824), in view of Yamanaka et al. (JP 2007-283548).
27. Regarding claim 8: Hayakawa et al. disclosed the maintenance device according to claim 1.
Hayakawa et al. are silent about wherein the suppression member is formed from resin.
Yamanaka et al. disclosed a maintenance device (see Fig. 8A), comprising a cap unit (Fig. 8A, reference 212), configured to cover a nozzle opening surface of a print head (Fig. 8A, reference 201), the cap comprising a suppression member (Fig. 8A, reference 212c), wherein the suppression member is formed from resin ([0051], lines 1-4; also see Fig. 8A, reference 212c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yamanaka et al. with those of Hayakawa et al. by making the liquid absorbing member out of rubber/resin in order to prevent its corrosion by the ink as commonly known in the art.
28. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa et al. (US Pat. Nº 6,481,824), in view of Hazeyama (US Pub. Nº 2012/0154474).
29. Regarding claim 10: Hayakawa et al. disclosed the maintenance device according to claim 1.
Hayakawa et al. are silent about wherein wetted air flows through the air supply port into the cap.
Hazeyama disclosed a maintenance device (see Fig. 5), comprising a capping unit (Fig. 5, the combination of supporting face 8a and circular caps 40 forms a closed space S1), configured to cover the nozzle opening surface of an inkjet head ([0032], line 1; also see Fig. 5, reference 10), and an air supply port (Fig. 5, reference 51b), wherein wetted air flows through the air supply port into the cap ([0063], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hazeyama with those of Hayakawa et al. by introducing wetted air into the cap in order to prevent thickening of the ink inside the ejection nozzles as disclosed by Hazeyama in paragraph [0063].
Allowable Subject Matter
30. Claims 3-7 are 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, provided the 112 rejection and the double patenting rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853