DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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 to correct 112 issues.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “section” in all claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 claim now recites that the first and second arm sections “become open to increase sealability.” First, it is not understood how the arm sections themselves could “become open.” In other words, the arm sections would appear to be generally linear portions of a sealing ring, and it is not clear how a portion of flexible material itself would become open. Further, it is not understood what is meant by “increase sealability.” Sealability of what? And how does the opening affect such an increase?
Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda (2017/0057242).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda teaches a positive pressure adjustment mechanism comprising:
a supply chamber (fig. 6, chamber upstream of supply port 4) with an inflow port (fig. 6, item 4) into which liquid flows;
a pressure chamber (fig. 6, item 5) that has a flexible section (fig. 6, item 2b) formed of a flexible member and that has an outflow port (fig. 6, item 6) arranged downstream of the supply chamber and from which the liquid flows out (see fig. 6);
a first communication path (fig. 6, item 7b) that brings the supply chamber and the pressure chamber into communication (see fig. 6);
a second communication path (fig. 6, cylindrical portion in which items 8b(8) and 8c(8) are disposed) that is arranged coaxially with the first communication path and that brings the supply chamber and the pressure chamber into communication (see fig. 6);
an opening and closing section (fig. 6, item 8) including a shaft section (fig. 6, item 8a(8)) that is inserted into the first communication path and the second communication path and that moves following the displacement of the flexible section (compare figs. 5, 6), and a valve section (fig. 6, 8c(8)) that is coupled to the shaft section and that is configured to open and close the first communication path (compare figs. 5, 6);
a first seal section (fig. 6, item 8c(8)) that forms a seal between an outer periphery of the shaft section and an inner periphery of the second communication path; and
a pressurizing section ([0062], pressure load pressing item 2b) configured to pressurize the flexible section in a first direction (fig. 6, direction shown) which decreases volume of the pressure chamber (see fig. 6), wherein the first seal section includes a first arm section (fig. 6, thinnest portion of item 8c(8) closest to shaft 8a(8)) and a second arm section (fig. 6, outward protrusions of item 8c(8)), the first arm section being closer to an outer periphery of the shaft section as the first arm extends long the first direction (see fig. 6) and the second arm section being closer to an inner periphery of the second communication path
when a pressure of the supply chamber is increased, the first arm section and the second arm section become open to increase sealability (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Ueda teaches the positive pressure adjustment mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the valve section is configured to close a pressure chamber side opening of the first communication path (see fig. 6, Note that the valve section closes the pressure chamber off from the supply chamber).
Regarding claim 9, Ueda teaches a liquid ejection device comprising: a liquid ejection head (fig. 3, item 25) configured to eject liquid; a positive pressure path (fig. 3, path with item 11, 23) configured to supply the liquid to the liquid ejection head (see fig. 3); and the positive pressure adjustment mechanism, according to claim 1, arranged in the positive pressure path (see figs. 1-5).
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, 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) 5, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Inoue et al. (2012/0000738).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda teaches the positive pressure adjustment mechanism according to claim 1. Ueda does not teach wherein the valve section includes a second seal section that forms a seal between an inner periphery of the first communication path and an outer periphery of the shaft section and a plurality of flow paths provided at the inner periphery of the first communication path, the plurality of flow paths being radially formed from the first communication path (Ueda, fig. 6, note arrows denoting two flow paths on radially opposite sides) the shaft section and the second seal section are movable with respect to the inner periphery of the first communication path, and the plurality of flow paths are, when the second seal section is in the closed position, not in communication with the supply chamber or the pressure chamber, and when the second seal section is in the open position, it brings the supply chamber and the pressure chamber into communication. Inoue teaches such a valve arrangement (Inoue, see fig. 3, Note numerous sealing sections CX at the inner periphery of any number of definable communication paths formed by the inner surface if the cylinder). 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 valve of the type disclosed by Inoue instead of that disclosed by Ueda because doing so would allow for more thorough sealing of the valve, thereby preventing leakage between chambers.
Upon combination of the references, the flexible member would be urged to push shaft 38A so that first and second sealing portions C1, C2 would allow for communication between the chambers in communication with ports 42A and 41A.
Regarding claim 6, Ueda in view of Inoue teaches the positive pressure adjustment mechanism according to claim 5,
Wherein the second seal section includes a third arm section and a fourth arm section, the third arm section is closer to an outer periphery of the shaft section as the third arm section extends along a direction opposite to the first direction and the fourth arm section is closer to an inner periphery of the second communication path as the fourth arm section extends along the direction opposite to the first direction, and when a pressure of the supply chamber is increased, the third arm section and fourth arm section become open to increase sealability (Inoue, see fig. 3, Note that each sealing portion has two arms meeting the limitations. Note that any number of sealing portions, each having two arms in a V-shaped cross section can be added at intervals along a length of the shaft, and note that any seal with a V-shaped cross-section can be said to be closer to an inner periphery of the second communication path and an outer periphery of the shaft they extend in the first direction).
Regarding claim 12, Ueda in view of Inoue teaches the positive pressure adjustment mechanism according to claim 6, wherein a side of the second seal section where a surface of the third arm second and a surface of the fourth arm section face each other is opposite to a side of the first seal section where a surface of the first arm section and a surface of the second arm section face each other (Inoue, fig. 3, Note that if the first and second seal sections are taken to be the second and third seal sections from the bottom of the page, the arm sections of each seal section face each other in opposite directions. In other words, on seal section has a V-shaped cross section, and one has an upside down V-shaped cross-section).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Miyazawa (2017/0066246).
Regarding claim 10, Ueda teaches a liquid ejection device comprising: a liquid ejection head (fig. 3, item 25) configured to eject liquid; a positive pressure path (fig. 3, path with item 11, 23) configured to supply the liquid to the liquid ejection head, the positive pressure adjustment mechanism according to claim 1, which is arranged in the positive pressure path (see figs. 1-5).
Ueda does not teach a negative pressure path configured to collect the liquid from the liquid ejection head; and a negative pressure adjustment mechanism arranged in the negative pressure path configured to adjust the negative pressure on the liquid ejection head side. Miyazawa teaches this (Miyazawa, fig. 5, Note two tanks 14, 13 with positive and negative pressure adjustment mechanisms 52, 53, respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the ink circulation structure disclosed by Miyazawa to the device of Ueda because doing so would allow for circulation of ink during standby periods, thereby ensuring the freshness of ink on printing.
Regarding claim 11, Ueda in view of Miyazawa teaches liquid the ejection device according to claim 10, further comprising: a first tank coupled to the positive pressure path and configured to contain the liquid to be supplied to the liquid ejection head; a second tank coupled to the negative pressure path and configured to contain the liquid collected from the liquid ejection head; a coupling path coupling the second tank and the first tank; a liquid delivery section that sends the liquid from the second tank to the first tank through the coupling path; a pressurizing pump configured to pressurize the inside of the first tank; and a vacuum pump configured to reduce the pressure in the second tank (Miyazawa, Note two tanks, two paths and coupling path 17 indirectly connecting first and second tanks).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights