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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheet of drawings was received on July 6, 2026. This drawing is
approved by the Examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: a cooling portion in claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 10-12; and a discharge portion in claim 1.
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. Note that the structure of the cooling portion is described in paragraphs [0033]-[0037] and [0076] of the specification. Additionally, the discharge portion structure is described in paragraphs [0021], [0056] and [0072].
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 § 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 (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 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.
(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.
Claim 11 is rejected under each of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tokie (US 6,513,897 B2).
With respect to claim 11, Tokie teaches an image formation device 50, 100, 300, 500 comprising:
a head 130, 140, 330, 340, 524, 526, 528, 529 configured to discharge ink 131, 141, 336;
a discharge portion 120, 320, 522, 528, 529 configured to discharge a pre-treatment agent 127, 326, the pre-treatment agent containing a volatile component having volatility, the pre-treatment agent reacting with the ink;
a platen 110, 312, 510 configured to support a recording medium 108, 305, 516 to which the pre-treatment agent is applied; and
a cooling portion (see column 4, lines 60-62 and column 12, lines 23-26) configured to cool, via the platen 110, 312, 510, the pre-treatment agent applied to the recording medium at a position where the pre-treatment agent is applied by the discharge portion.
Note the language in the claim with respect to the ink and the pre-treatment agent are functional intended use recitations and since Tokie teaches the structure of a dispensing head that is capable of discharging ink and a discharge portion that is capable of discharging a pre-treatment agent having volatility that reacts with the ink, it meets the claim language as recited. See, for example, the embodiments shown in Figures 2-5 and column 8, line 61-column 9, line 43 for the discussion of the types of fluid materials that may be used with the fluid applicators in Tokie.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokie (US 6,513,897 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Tokie teaches an image formation device 50, 100, 300, 500 comprising:
a head 130, 140, 330, 340, 524, 526, 528, 529 configured to discharge ink 131, 141, 336;
a discharge portion 120, 320, 522, 528, 529 configured to discharge a pre-treatment agent 127, 326, the pre-treatment agent containing a volatile component having volatility, the pre-treatment agent reacting with the ink;
a tank 128, 325 configured to store the pre-treatment agent 127, 326; and
a cooling portion (see column 6, lines 10-15) configured to cool the pre-treatment agent along a pathway 129 connecting the tank 128 and the discharge portion 120.
Note the language in the claim with respect to the ink and the pre-treatment agent are functional intended use recitations and since Tokie teaches the structure of a dispensing head that is capable of discharging ink and a discharge portion that is capable of discharging a pre-treatment agent having volatility that reacts with the ink, it meets the claim language as recited. See, for example, the embodiments shown in Figures 2-5 and column 8, line 61-column 9, line 43 for the discussion of the types of fluid materials that may be used with the fluid applicators in Tokie.
Additionally, while Tokie is silent with respect to whether the fluid pathway specifically includes a tube, note the use of tubular members for fluid flow purposes is well known and conventional in the art. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fluid pathway of Tokie to include a tube connecting the tank and discharge portion and to provide the cooling portion to cool the agent inside the tube so as to insure that the fluid material is supplied to the discharge portion at the desired temperature and/or viscosity for proper jetting/dispensing of the material.
With respect to claim 3, note Tokie teaches that the cooling portion additionally cools the liquid stored in the tank, as discussed in column 6, lines 10-15.
With respect to claim 10, Tokie teaches the desire to control the temperature and/or viscosity of the liquid being supplied to the discharge portion to ensure proper jetting of the material in column 6, lines 10-15. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cooling portion to cool the liquid to cause the temperature to be higher than a solidifying point of the agent so as to insure that the liquid has a temperature/viscosity as desired to ensure proper jetting of the material.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokie (US 6,513,897 B2) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 10 above, and further in view of Yokoyama (JP 2003-220715 A).
With respect to claim 4, Tokie teaches an image formation device as recited with the possible exception of the tank including a heat insulating material. However, the provision of heat insulating material in a tank for storing fluids in a printer is well known in the art, as exemplified by the heat insulating material(s) described in Yokoyama. See, in particular, the description of the sub-tank 15 including the heat insulating member 15a in Yokoyama. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tank of Tokie to include a heat insulating material to insure that the temperature of the tank is maintained more uniform.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokie (US 6,513,897 B2) as applied to claims 1, 3 and 10 above, either alone or further in view of Midorikawa et al. (US 2019/0126649 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Tokie teaches an image formation device as recited with the possible exception of the cooling portion cooling the pre-treatment agent inside the discharge portion. It is noted that the claim language is broadly written and includes functional language and one could read Tokie to teach the functional limitation of cooling the pre-treatment agent inside the discharge portion. Specifically, it could be considered that the cooling portion (i.e., the cooling mechanisms in the tank and flow path of Tokie) functions to cool the agent inside the discharge head because the agent has been cooled both in the storage tank and along the path between the tank and the discharge head and thus will be cooled when it reaches the inside of the discharge portion.
However, in the event that the claim language can be interpreted to require a separate cooling portion that is located inside the discharge head, note that the provision of a cooling device inside a discharge head is well known in the art, as exemplified by the teaching of the cooling section 404 shown in the inkjet head 4 in Figure 4A of Midorikawa et al. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the discharge head of Tokie to include a cooling portion as taught by Midorikawa et al. to allow for better control of the temperature of the discharge head during operation and allow the better handling of a wide variety of liquids.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokie (US 6,513,897 B2) as applied to claims 1, 3, and 10 above, and further in view of Moriguchi et al. (US 2019/0009600 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Tokie teaches an image formation device including a controller that controls the cooling portion to cool the pre-treatment agent (see, for example, the electronic and control components--i.e., microprocessor, software, etc. described in column 10, line 57-column 11, line 10 and column 13, lines 40-64) but is silent with respect to the details of the controller and whether it includes instructions to control the cooling portion in at least one of a case where the temperature measured by a thermometer or the humidity measured by a hygrometer are higher or lower than the desired values. However, Moriguchi et al. teaches a printing arrangement including a controller comprised of a processor 13 and memory 132 controlling the cooling portion 5A, 5D, 5E and causing the cooling portion to cool the pre-treatment agent in at least one of a case in which a temperature measured by a thermometer (i.e., temperature sensors 111-114) measuring the temperature is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature, or in a case in which a humidity measured by a hygrometer is equal to or lower than a predetermined humidity. See, in particular, paragraphs [0094]-[0106] and [0115]-[0142] and Figures 4-5 and 8-9 of Moriguchi et al. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the controller in the image formation device of Tokie to be capable of controlling the cooling portion based upon temperature or humidity monitoring to allow for more precise control of the material properties (for example, the temperature/humidity/viscosity) of the pre-treatment agent as it is being dispensed on the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed July 6, 2026, with respect to claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, claim 12 is hereby allowed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 10-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2021-536387 A teaches a printhead including assemblies for both primer application and ink application having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent. Yoda et al. (US 2022/0032660 A1) teaches an image formation device including a platen with cooling having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
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 LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
