CTNF 18/967,446 CTNF 81217 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/17/2025 and 2/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please note that US 2020/0196164 is not attributed to Uematsu. It is not clear which document Applicant intended to cite. This reference has not been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murase et al. (US 2024/0198689 A1) . 07-15-02-aia The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Regarding claim 1: Murase et al. disclose a liquid ejection apparatus comprising: a print unit (printing head 9) that performs printing by ejecting liquid from an ejection port (ejection orifice 13: paragraph 50 & Fig. 6); a pump (circulating pump 500) that circulates the liquid to be supplied to the ejection port (paragraph 53 & Fig. 6); and a control unit (MPU 102) that controls driving of the print unit and the pump (Fig. 3), wherein, in a print operation for printing an image on a print medium (S1513), the control unit drives the pump using a first output (as set at S1504: paragraph 96 & Figs. 15-16), and in circulation testing for testing a circulation state of the liquid (S1505-1508), the control unit drives the pump using a second output with which a smaller amount of liquid is delivered than with the first output (as set at S1512: paragraphs 86-87 & Figs. 15-16). 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Komamiya et al. (US 2022/0134735 A1) . Regarding claims 1 and 14: Komamiya et al. disclose a liquid ejection apparatus comprising: a print unit (print head 3) that performs printing by ejecting liquid from an ejection port (Fig. 11); a pump (a circulation pump P1/P2) that circulates the liquid to be supplied to the ejection port (paragraphs 44/54 & Fig. 3); and a control unit (control unit 500) that controls driving of the print unit and the pump (Fig. 2), wherein, in a print operation for printing an image on a print medium (a “test pattern”), the control unit drives the pump using a first output (to achieve flow rate Qb, at maximum frequency: paragraphs 50, 60, 127 & step S11), and in circulation testing for testing a circulation state of the liquid (Fig. 20), the control unit drives the pump using a second output with which a smaller amount of liquid is delivered than with the first output (at minimum frequency: paragraphs 50, 60, 130 & step S14). Regarding claim 4: Komamiya et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that, in the circulation testing, the control unit drives the print unit while driving the pump using the second output (paragraphs 50, 60, 130 & steps S14-15), and the liquid ejection apparatus comprises a determination unit () that determines the circulation state of the liquid based on an ejection state of ejection performed by the print unit (). Regarding claim 12: Komamiya et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that, in a print operation after the circulation testing, the control unit drives the print unit while driving the pump using an output larger than the first output (when printing at maximum frequency: paragraphs 60, 117) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komamiya et al. (US 2022/0134735 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0180322 A1) . Regarding claims 2-3: Komamiya et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose the manner by which the pump is driven using outputs. However, Lee et al. disclose a pump (circulating pump 600) that is driven by outputting a voltage and/or frequency to a piezoelectric motor (paragraph 44). Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize and control a pump of the type taught by Lee et al. as Komamiya et al.’s pump, so as to achieve the predictable result of controlling the ink circulation . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Akishiba et al. (US 2017/0087864 A1) disclose a liquid ejection apparatus in which a pump (121-122) is controlled using a first output during a print operation, and a second output lower than the first output during a non-printing period. Akishiba et al. are silent as to circulation testing for testing a circulation state of the liquid. Uematsu et al. (US 2022/0126594 A1) disclose a liquid ejection apparatus in which a pump (212, 213) is controlled during a print operation and during a circulation testing, wherein the pump may be driven by a second output lower than a first output during printing at least when the environmental conditions/component deterioration/type of liquid warrant a reduced pressure. However, Uematsu et al. do not expressly disclose a determination unit that determines the circulation state of the liquid based on an ejection state of ejection performed by the print unit. Fukuta et al. (US 2019/0263137 A1) disclose a liquid ejection apparatus in which a pump (27) is controlled using a second output during circulation testing for testing a circulation state of the liquid. Fukuta et al. are silent as to a first output during a print operation . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4-11 and 13 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. Claims 4-11 and 13 appear to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not expressly disclose or make obvious a liquid ejection apparatus comprising a determination unit “that determines the circulation state of the liquid based on an ejection state of the ejection performed by the print unit.” It is this limitation, in combination with the other features and limitations of claim 4, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record. Communication with the USPTO Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST. 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 at (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 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. SHELBY L. FIDLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2853 /SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/967,446 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/967,446 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/967,446 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights