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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 is being 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 10 and 12 recites the limitation "the container" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is “a container” in claim 10 line 2 and claim 1 lines 1-2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is similarly rejected for inheriting the above discussed issue due to its dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukahara (US 2020/0070533).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukahara teaches an ink liquid level height measuring apparatus (fig.1) that measures a liquid level height of ink in a container (7,8), the ink liquid level height measuring apparatus comprising:
a float (16,24 fig.1) that includes a magnet (17,25) and moves in association with a change in the liquid level height;
a Hall element (11,12 fig.1) that detects, as a continuous value, a change in magnetic flux density due to the magnet (17,25) that moves together with the float (16,24); and
at least one hardware processor (21 fig.2), wherein
the at least one hardware processor (21 fig.2)
adjusts the liquid level height to a reference height (paragraphs 0027,0034,0037,0040,0042-0045), and
acquires an output value of the Hall element and corrects the liquid level height based on the output value, the output value being an output value when the liquid level height is the reference height (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0050-0067).
Regarding claim 7, Tsukahara further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor (21 fig.2) performs determination of a state of an ink supply path to the container (supply path to container/s 7, and/or 8 fig.1) based on the liquid level height with respect to the reference height or a rate of change in the liquid level height (figs.1,3; paragraphs 0027,0034,0037,0040,0042-0045,0050-0067. For instance, the state of the ink supply path is changed by the operation of for example pump 13 and/or valve 33 to adjust/change the liquid level in the container based on the liquid level determined/ liquid level state).
Regarding claim 8, Tsukahara further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor (21 fig.2), during the determination, adjusts the liquid level height to the reference height, and acquires an output value of the Hall element (11,12 fig.1) when the liquid level height is the reference height (figs.1, 3; paragraphs 0027,0034,0037,0040,0042-0045,0050-0067).
Regarding claim 9, Tsukahara further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor (21 fig.2) performs the determination of the state of the ink supply path based on the rate of change in the liquid level height in a case where the ink has been supplied to the container (7 and/or 8 fig.1) for a predetermined time (figs.3; paragraphs009-0012,0050-0067).
Regarding claim 10, Tsukahara further teaches an image forming apparatus (inkjet printer 1 fig.1), comprising: a container (9) that stores ink; an image former (inkjet head 2) that forms an image by using the ink supplied from the container; and the ink liquid level height measuring apparatus according to claim 1 (figs.1,2).
Regarding claim 11, Tsukahara further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor (21 fig.2), during an image formation by the image former, adjusts the liquid level height to the reference height, and acquires an output value of the Hall element (11,12 fig.1) when the liquid level height is the reference height (figs.1, 3; paragraphs 0050-0067).
Regarding claim 12, Tsukahara further teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor (21 fig.2) supplies the ink to the container, when the liquid level height of the ink in the container (7,8) becomes lower than the reference height due to the image formation by the image former, and stops supplying the ink, when the liquid level height reaches the reference height (figs.1-3; paragraphs 0027,0034,0037,0040, 0042-0045,0050-0067).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukahara (US 2020/0070533) in view of Berrill (US 7,793,200) and/or Oyama et al. (EP 0707195).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukahara substantially teaches the claimed invention including the Hall element (11,12 fig.1) which has a structure supporting/housing it.
Tsukahara does not teach wherein a housing of the Hall element includes a magnetic body.
However, Berrill teaches a Hall element (22 fig.1) used in a liquid level sensing device (10), wherein the Hall element (22) is housed in housing (fig.2) including a magnetic body (24)(col.2 lines 65-67, col.3 lines 1-3, 19-23).
Similarly, Oyama et al teaches a Hall element (3 figs.1,3,9) that can be used in a liquid level sensing device (col. 2 lines 22-26), wherein a housing of the Hall element (3) includes a magnetic body (2 figs.1,3,9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use housing having magnetic body to house the Hall element of Tsukahara based on the teachings of Berrill and/or Oyama et al in order to better concentrate magnetic flux to improve detection accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Pertinent Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asami et al. (US 2010/0194798), Nishizawa et al. (US 2020/0230971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights