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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 December 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2-7 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.
Claims 2-7 recite “the degradation level of the filter” and/or “the degradation level of the pump”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. The Examiner will assume the limitations are meant to recite “the deterioration level of the filter” and/or “the deterioration level of the pump” for purposes of examination.
Furthermore, the claims are indefinite since Claim 1 recites “a deterioration (i.e. a degradation) level of at least one of the pump and the filter” (which requires only one of the two options to be met for the limitation to be met as written), but Claims 2-7 requires one in specific or both. It is unclear how a claim requiring one in specific or both can depend from a claim requiring only either.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akiyama et al. (JP 2023-139839 – hereinafter Akiyama.)
Regarding claim 1,
Akiyama discloses a liquid feeding apparatus [9 in fig. 4] comprising:
a flow path [902 in fig. 4] including a pump [90 in fig. 4] that feeds liquid from a first reservoir [92a in fig. 4] to a second reservoir [91a in fig. 4], and a filter [‘Flf’ in fig. 4] that collects foreign matters from the liquid fed [as seen in fig. 4; paragraphs 0069, 0093, and 0097]; and
a hardware processor [513 in fig. 5],
wherein the hardware processor acquires a numerical value related to a liquid feed amount of the liquid fed to the second reservoir by driving the pump with at least one second set value different from a first set value related to a normally used driving force, and diagnoses a deterioration level [due to clogging] of at least one of the pump and the filter based on the numerical value [paragraph 0093-0097; please note that only one of the options is needed for the limitation to be met as written.]
Regarding claim 2,
Akiyama further discloses wherein when the hardware processor diagnoses the degradation level of the filter, the second set value is larger than the first set value [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 3,
Akiyama further discloses wherein when the hardware processor diagnoses the degradation level of the pump, the second set value is smaller than the first set value [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 4,
Akiyama further discloses wherein the hardware processor diagnoses the degradation level of the filter and the pump again based on a relationship between the degradation level of the filter and the degradation level of the pump [please note 112 Rejection above; it is not clear how a claim requiring both degradation/deterioration levels can depend from a claim requiring only one.]
Regarding claim 5,
Akiyama further discloses wherein the hardware processor predicts a replacement timing of the filter based on transition of the degradation level of the filter, and provides a notification of a replacement recommendation message to a user [paragraphs 0096 and 0102; through display ‘UI 39’.]
Regarding claim 6,
Akiyama further discloses wherein the hardware processor predicts a replacement timing of the pump based on transition of the degradation level of the pump, and provides a notification of a replacement recommendation message to a user [please note 112 Rejection above; it is not clear how a claim requiring a specific degradation/deterioration level can depend from a claim requiring either one.]
Regarding claim 7,
Akiyama further discloses wherein the hardware processor calibrates the first set value such that a liquid feeding amount of the liquid to be fed to the second reservoir becomes a predetermined liquid feeding amount based on the degradation level of the filter and the degradation level of the pump [paragraphs 0093-0098.]
Regarding claim 8,
Akiyama further discloses wherein the numerical value related to the liquid feed amount is a liquid level height in the second reservoir [‘Lf’ in fig. 4; paragraphs 0066 and 0094-0098.]
Regarding claim 9,
Akiyama further discloses an image forming apparatus [3 in figs.1-2] comprising:
a first reservoir [92a in fig. 4] and a second reservoir [91a in fig. 4] that store ink [paragraph 0044];
the liquid feeding apparatus according to claim 1 that feeds the ink [see Rejection above]; and
an image former [H in fig. 4] that forms an image using the ink supplied from the second reservoir [paragraph 0044.]
Regarding claim 10,
The steps of this method claim are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 X 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights