DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turgeman (8,403,466) in view of Ishida et al. (2016/0279962), Bhaskaran et al. (2017/0087866), Rankin et al. (2008/0040234) and Hayashi et al. (2022/0274416).
Regarding claim 1, Turgeman teaches a liquid supply system comprising:
a liquid supply device comprising:
a first liquid supply path (fig. 1, item 120) that supplies a printing liquid contained in a first liquid container (fig. 2, item 170) to a first liquid supply port (fig. 2, item 136) corresponding to a type of a container (see fig. 2, note there is a different type of cartridge for each of the six supply paths), the first liquid supply path having a first injection portion (fig. 2, item 200) at a distal end thereof;
a second liquid supply path (fig. 1, item 125) that supplies a printing liquid contained in a second liquid container (fig. 2, item 170) to a second liquid supply port (fig. 2, item 136) corresponding to a type of the container (see fig. 2, note there is a different type of cartridge for each of the six supply paths), the second liquid supply path having a second injection portion (fig. 2, item 200) at a distal end thereof;
a selector (fig. 2, item 150) that selects either the first liquid supply path or the second liquid supply path (col. 7, lines, 55-67); and
a liquid supplier that, when the first liquid supply path is selected by the selector, supplies the printing liquid contained in the first liquid container via the first liquid supply path to the container and that, when the second liquid supply path is selected by the selector, supplies the printing liquid contained in the second liquid container via the second liquid supply path to the container (col. 7, lines, 55-67, Note that, depending on the type of cartridge selected on interface 150, assuming only a single cartridge is positioned for filling, only one of the two supply paths will be operated to fill the container according to the type of container).
Turgeman does not teach
a first detector that detects a storage amount of the printing liquid capable of being supplied via the first liquid supply path from the first liquid container;
a second detector that detects a storage amount of the printing liquid capable of being supplied via the second liquid supply path from the second liquid container;
a determiner that determines whether the storage amount of the printing liquid capable of being supplied via the first liquid supply path from the first liquid container is less than or equal to a predetermined lower limit, and that determines whether the storage amount of the printing liquid capable of being supplied via the second liquid supply path from the second liquid container is less than or equal to the predetermined lower limit; and
a notifier that issues, based on a determination result of the determiner, a notification indicating either that the storage amount of the printing liquid capable of being supplied via the first liquid supply path from the first liquid container is less than or equal to the predetermined lower limit or that the storage amount of the printing liquid capable of being supplied via the second liquid supply path from the second liquid container is less than or equal to the predetermined lower limit.
Ishida teaches this (Ishida, see figs. 4-8, Note detectors 15/16 in each ink tank 11 detecting whether liquid levels are below a certain threshold amount for each tank and notifying a user via a display of the need for more ink). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the ink level sensing capability disclosed by Ishida to the device disclosed by Turgeman because doing so would ensure that no refilling job was started without certainty that the entire cartridge could be refilled.
(Examiner is aware that Ishida is directed to a printer and not a refilling station, as disclosed by Turgeman. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains that the ink level sensing and notification functionality disclosed by Ishida was equally applicable to any number of applications requiring the supply of liquid from a source tank to a destination tank).
Turgeman in view of Ishida does not teach a server that is connected to the liquid supply device over a network, the server comprising: a communication circuit configured to communicate with the liquid supply device over the network. Bhaskaran teaches this (Bhaskaran, [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to connect the liquid supply device of Turgeman in view of Ishida to a server via a network, as disclosed by Bhaskaran, because doing so would allow for remote control of the liquid supply device by users in multiple places.
Turgeman in view of Ishida and Bhaskaran does not teach an imager disposed at a front of the liquid supply device, wherein the selector selects either the first liquid supply path or the second liquid supply path in accordance with an image captured and generated by the imager. Rankin teaches labeling a refillable cartridge with a barcode that allows a refilling system to track information about a given ink cartridge over time (Rankin, [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the barcode functionality of Rankin to the system disclosed by Turgeman in view of Ishida and Bhaskaran because doing so would allow for tracking of information about any given cartridge. Upon addition of this functionality, an imager to scan the barcode would necessarily be present, and the selector would select a particular type of ink and corresponding supply path to fill a given cartridge.
Further, note that “a front of the liquid supply device” could be any side of the device as the front has not been defined. As such, any a barcode scanner anywhere in relation to the device would meet the limitation. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to locate such a scanner on a front of the device because it would need to be accessible to a user, so locating a scanner on a back side of the device would not make any sense.
Turgeman in view of Ishida, Bhaskaran and Rankin does not teach wherein the first and second injection portions have different shapes. Hayashi teaches wherein injection ports of injection bottles for refilling ink tanks have different shapes to correspond with different receiving ports of the tanks (Hayashi, see figs. 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use injection portions with different shapes, as disclosed by Hayashi, in the device disclosed by Turgeman in view of Ishida, Bhaskaran and Rankin because doing so would ensure that only the right liquids were refilled into the right cartridges.
Regarding claim 2, Turgeman in view of Ishida, Bhaskaran, Rankin and Hayashi teaches the liquid supply device according to claim 1, wherein the first liquid supply path includes a first coupling portion (Turgeman, fig. 3, item 208), the first coupling portion couples the first liquid supply port to the first liquid supply path (Turgeman, see fig. 2), the second liquid supply path includes a second coupling portion (Turgeman, fig. 3, item 208), and the second coupling portion couples the second liquid supply port to the second liquid supply path (Turgeman, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Turgeman in view of Ishida, Bhaskaran, Rankin and Hayashi teaches the liquid supply device according to claim 2, wherein the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion have the same shape (Turgeman, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Turgeman in view of Ishida, Bhaskaran, Rankin and Hayashi teaches the liquid supply device according to claim 1, further comprising an operation unit, wherein the selector selects either the first liquid supply path or the second liquid supply path in accordance with an operation of the operation unit (Turgeman, col. 7, lines, 55-67, Note that, depending on the type of cartridge selected on interface 150, assuming only a single cartridge is positioned for filling, only one of the two supply paths will be operated to fill the container according to the type of container).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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 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, 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853