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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the combination of references does not arrive at or otherwise suggest the stirring method of claim 9 because the combination fails to teach that the first posture has the surface with the ejection port facing down and Testuhiro et al. (paraphrasing) discloses rotating between inclined positions where the ejection port faces to the side rather than down (Remarks, page 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Tetsuhiro et al. discloses that the ejection port faces down in the first posture in that Tetsuhiro et al. shows (such as in Fig. 11) that the ejection port is angled downward. It is noted that the claims do not define the position of “faces down” relative to any other portion of the device or specify that the “faces down” position requires the ejection port to be aligned along the direction of gravity or otherwise along a vertical line. Furthermore, the device of Tetsuhiro et al. could be positioned such that the ejection port faces down and is aligned with the direction of gravity in the first posture.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims required the ejection port to face down along the direction of gravity and the device could not be positioned in this position when in the first posture (which is not conceded), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Kawate teaches an ink cartridges with an ejection port that faces down during ink delivery (a normal posture) and it would have been obvious to modify Tetsuhiro et al. where the ink cartridge faces down in a normal or first posture and thereby produce the predictable result of delivering ink in a normal posture and thus the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (paraphrasing) Kawate discloses that printing is possible in each mounting state including inclined orientations (Figs. 11B and 11C) and thus Kawate does not disclose or suggest rotating the ink cartridge from either of the inclined orientations to the orientation shown in Fig. 11A such that shifting the first posture of Tetsuhiro et al. would not be suggested by Kawate (Remarks, page 8). Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, supra; In re Merck & Co., supra. Also, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, supra. In this case, Tetsuhiro et al. discloses rotating between first and second postures while Kawate is merely relied upon to teach a normal position/posture for an ink cartridge (Fig. 11A). Again, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teaching of Tetsuhiro et al. where the ejection port faces down in the first posture and the person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the stirring mechanism (rotating stirring) of Tetsuhiro et al. for a cartridge setup that faces down to achieve the predictable result of stirring and delivering ink and the argument is not persuasive.
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 6 and 14 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.
Claim 6 recites “a first posture” in lines 5-6. It is not clear if this is the same posture as the first posture recited in claim 1 from which claim 6 now depends or a different first posture. As best understood, it is the same first posture.
It is recommended to change this to “the first posture”.
Claim 6 recites “a normal stop posture” in line 7. It is not clear if this is the same normal stop posture previously recited in claim 1 or a different posture.
It is recommended to remove “wherein the first posture is a state in which the cartridge is in a normal stop posture” which is redundant and previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “a first posture” in lines 5-6. It is not clear if this is the same posture as the first posture recited in claim 10 from which claim 14 depends or a different first posture. As best understood, it is the same first posture.
It is recommended to change this to “the first posture”.
Claim 14 recites “a normal stop posture” in line 7. It is not clear if this is the same normal stop posture previously recited in claim 10 or a different posture.
It is recommended to remove “wherein the first posture is a state in which the cartridge is in a normal stop posture” which is essentially redundant over the similar limitation previously recited in claim 10.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuhiro et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed WO 2017217000A1) in view of Hamamoto (previously attached translation of JP 2016196093), Osanai et al. (US 20040248130), view of Kawate (US 20130321536) and Kamatsu et al. (US 6802893).
Regarding claim 9, Tetsuhiro et al. discloses a stirring method shown outlined below:
PNG
media_image1.png
456
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tetsuhiro et al. discloses the stirring method includes causing a rotating holder (cartridge holder 30A) to perform a rotating operation (Fig. 11, rotation X1) in a state where the rotating holder holds a cartridge (ink cartridge 31) that includes an ejection port (discharge port 38C) that ejects a liquid agent.
Tetsuhiro et al. discloses correcting (correcting in that the holder is returned to the initial position F1 from position F2, such as for operation and delivering ink) a stop position (upon reaching the position F2 shown above, Fig. 11, the holder and motor are stopped at least because they reach zero velocity during transition to the reverse direction X2) of the rotating holder to position the cartridge in a first posture (position F1) in a case where the rotating operation is stopped in a state where the cartridge is in a second posture (the rotation must at least involve zero velocity and thus be “stopped” at position F2 before reversing rotation in the X2 direction, Fig. 11) that is different from the first posture (position F2 is different from the first posture F1).
Otherwise, Hamamoto discloses a holder (container 40) for agitating a liquid (ink, Abstract) wherein the agitation is conducted using a rotating mechanism (cam 85) having a rotating shaft (shaft 84) connected to a motor (motor 81) and Hamamoto teaches correcting a stop position (such as a third position, para. [0032], corrected back to a first position where printing may be conducted, para. [0079]) of the holder (container 40) to position the holder in a first posture (first position) in a case where the rotating operation is stopped in a state where the cartridge is in a second posture (such as a third position, para. [0032]) that is different from the first posture, wherein the first posture is a normal stop posture (a first position for printing, para. [0079]) where a detector (detector 86) is used to confirm the posture (para. [0071]).
Likewise, Osanai et al. discloses a method which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to correcting the posture of rotating devices (including mixers/shakers, Fig. 7 and separators, Fig. 10) to an origin position using a detector (sensor 37, Fig. 7, sensor 5B, Fig. 10) for determining the position of the motor shaft (shaft 3Aa, Fig. 7, shaft 5G, Fig. 10) and to correct the position (para. [0008]) and Osanai et al. teaches correcting a stop position (para. [0008]) of a holder (holder 31, Fig. 7, holder 53, Fig. 10) to position a cartridge (tube 32, Fig. 7, tube 52, Fig. 10) in a first posture (a specified position, para. [0008]) in a case where the rotating operation is stopped in a state where the cartridge is in a second posture that is different from the first posture (para. [0008]), wherein the first posture is a normal stop posture (a specified position, para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Tetsuhiro et al. wherein the method includes correcting a stop position of the rotating holder to position the cartridge in a first posture in a case where the rotating operation is stopped in a state where the cartridge is in a second posture that is different from the first posture, wherein the first posture is a state in which the cartridge is in a normal stop posture.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to correct a stop position using a detector (Hamamoto, detector 86) in order to ensure that the holder is in a position for printing (Hamamoto, para. [0079]).
Tetsuhiro et al. discloses wherein the first posture is a normal stop posture in a state where the surface with the ejection port provided therein faces down (in position F1, the discharge at 38A is angled downward); Otherwise, Kawate teaches an ink cartridge (ink cartridge 10) and further teaches the discharge port faces down in a posture for delivering ink (Fig. 11A, para. [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Tetsuhiro et al. wherein the first posture is a posture in a state where the surface with the ejection port provided therein faces down.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have the port facing down in the first posture in order to facilitate delivery of ink.
Tetsuhiro et al. does not explicitly disclose a ventilation port in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port is provided.
However, Kawate et al. further teaches a ventilation port (air vent 16) in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port (port 13, Fig. 6) is provided.
Likewise, Kamatsu et al. teaches an ink cartridge (Fig. 1) and further teaches a ventilation port (vent holes 103) in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port (port 121) is provided.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Tetsuhiro et al. wherein the device includes a ventilation port in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port is provided.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a ventilation port in order to vent the cartridge such as to allow for pressure regulation as ink is dispensed and to locate the ventilation port on a different side in order to provide for headspace in the cartridge.
Regrading claim 10, Tetsuhiro et al. discloses a stirring device (Fig. 3, Abstract) shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
436
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tetsuhiro et al. discloses the stirring device comprises a rotating holder (cartridge holder 30A) that is capable of performing a rotating operation in a state where the rotating holder holds a cartridge (ink cartridge 31) that includes an ejection port (discharge port 38C) that ejects a liquid agent.
Tetsuhiro et al. does not explicitly disclose a ventilation port in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port is provided.
However, Kawate et al. discloses an ink cartridge (ink cartridge 10) and further teaches a ventilation port (air vent 16) in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port (port 13, Fig. 6) is provided.
Likewise, Kamatsu et al. teaches an ink cartridge (Fig. 1) and further teaches a ventilation port (vent holes 103) in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port (port 121) is provided.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Tetsuhiro et al. wherein the device includes a ventilation port in a surface that is different from a surface where the ejection port is provided.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a ventilation port in order to vent the cartridge such as to allow for pressure regulation as ink is dispensed and to locate the ventilation port on a different side in order to provide for headspace in the cartridge.
Tetsuhiro et al. further discloses a drive motor (motor 43) that causes the rotating holder to perform the rotating operation (rotation X1); and a posture controller (control device 60 with control unit 71 controls operation of the motor 43 to move between the first posture, F1, and the second posture, F2, para. [0031]) that corrects (correcting in that it is returned to the initial position F1, such as for operation and delivering ink) a stop position (upon reaching the position F2 shown above, Fig. 11, the holder and motor are stopped at least insofar as they reach zero velocity during transition to the reverse direction X2) of the rotating holder to position the cartridge in a first posture in a case where an operation of the drive motor is stopped (the motor 43 must reach zero velocity and be “stopped” during transition between clockwise rotation X1 and counterclockwise rotation X2) in a state where the cartridge is in a second posture (position F2) that is different from the first posture (position F1), wherein the first posture is a normal stop posture (the position F1 is the initial position and the position to which the cartridge is returned, para. [0031]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the return to the initial position does not constitute a correction of the posture; Hamamoto discloses a holder (container 40) for agitating a liquid (ink, Abstract) wherein the agitation is conducted using a rotating mechanism (cam 85) having a rotating shaft (shaft 84) connected to a motor (motor 81) and Hamamoto teaches using a detector (detector 86) for determining the posture by detecting the shaft position as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
446
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hamamoto further teaches correcting the posture based on the detection (the posture is moved from one position to a first position verified by a detector, pars. [0014], [0018], [0072] and [0079]).
Likewise, Osanai et al. discloses a device which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to correcting the posture of rotating devices (including mixers/shakers, Fig. 7 and separators, Fig. 10) to an origin position using a detector (sensor 5B, Fig. 10) for determining the position of the motor shaft (shaft 3Aa, Fig. 7, shaft 5G, Fig. 10) and to correct the position (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Tetsuhiro et al. wherein a detector is utilized for determining the position of the motor shaft (Tetsuhiro et al., shaft for motor 43) and to correct the position (by placing the shaft and cartridge in the appropriate position, such as a first position for printing, para. [0079]) based on the detection.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to ensure the holder is in the correct position and make corrections to the posture if it is not in the correct position in order to ensure or help to ensure good flow of ink for printing (Hamamoto, ensuring it is in the ink outflow position, pars. [0014] and [0079]).
Tetsuhiro et al. discloses wherein the first posture is a normal stop posture in a state where the surface with the ejection port provided therein faces down (in position F1, the discharge at 38A is angled downward); Otherwise, Kawate teaches an ink cartridge (ink cartridge 10) and further teaches the discharge port faces down in a posture for delivering ink (Fig. 11A, para. [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Tetsuhiro et al. wherein the first posture is a posture in a state where the surface with the ejection port provided therein faces down.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have the port facing down in the first posture in order to facilitate delivery of ink.
Regarding claim 14, Tetsuhiro et al. does not disclose a posture controller that includes a photointerrupter and an operation controller that controls an operation of the drive motor to stop the rotating holder at a position where the cartridge is in a first posture on a basis of a detection result of the photointerrupter.
However, Hamamoto discloses a holder (container 40) for agitating a liquid (ink, Abstract) wherein the agitation is conducted using a rotating mechanism (cam 85) having a rotating shaft (shaft 84) connected to a motor (motor 81) and Hamamoto teaches using a detector (detector 86) with a photointerrupter (sensors 87 and 88 of detector 86 may be photointerrupters, para. [0070]) for determining the posture by detecting the shaft position (shown above for claim 10) and Hamamoto further teaches a posture controller (comprising components of attitude changing unit 80, pars. [0069] and [0079]) that includes the photointerrupter (pars. [0069]-[0070]) that detects a stop position (para. [0079], a position that is not the first position, such as a second position/posture, para. [0080], or a third position, para. [0032]) of the holder and an operation controller (control unit 5 controls various subunits of the device, para. [0038], including the motor, para. [0078]) that controls an operation of the drive motor (motor 81, para. [0070]) to stop the holder at a position where the cartridge is in a first posture (the first position, para. [0079]) on a basis of a detection result of the photointerrupter (pars. [0078]-[0079]) wherein the first posture is a state in which the cartridge is in a normal stop posture (“normal” such as for printing, para. [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Tetsuhiro et al. wherein the device includes a posture controller that includes a photointerrupter (Hamamoto, components of attitude changing unit 80, pars. [0069] and [0079], which includes a photointerrupter, para. [0070]) that detects a stop position of the rotating holder; and wherein the posture controller includes an operation controller (Tetsuhiro et al., control device 60 with control unit 71 and motor 43, Hamamoto, control unit 5) that controls an operation of the drive motor to stop the rotating holder at a position where the cartridge is in a first posture on a basis of a detection result of the photointerrupter, wherein the first posture is a state in which the cartridge is in a normal stop posture.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a posture controller that includes a photointerrupter and an operation controller that controls an operation of the drive motor to stop the rotating holder at a position where the cartridge is in a first posture on a basis of a detection result of the photointerrupter in order to ensure the cartridge is in the printing position (Hamamoto, para. [0079]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 15-18 are allowed.
Claim 6 would be allowable upon resolution of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above.
Claims 11-13 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses mixing devices which mix by rotating a container and which return to a normal position upon completing rotation/mixing. The prior art of record includes devices which comprise a rotating holder which holds a container or cartridge, including devices specifically for mixing ink, and which include a drive motor and a posture controller.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a device which comprises a rotating holder powered by a drive motor where the rotating holder holds a cartridge which undergoes a rotating mixing/stirring/agitating operation and which includes a posture controller which corrects a stop position of the rotating holder to rotate the holder back to a normal position and wherein the posture controller includes a spring member that applies a load to stop the rotating holder at a position where the cartridge is in the normal position.
Likewise, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a device which comprises a rotating holder powered by a drive motor where the rotating holder holds a cartridge which undergoes a rotating mixing/stirring/agitating operation and which includes a posture controller which corrects a stop position of the rotating holder to rotate the holder back to a normal position and wherein the posture controller includes a weight that sets a center of gravity of the rotating holder to stop the rotating holder at a position where the cartridge is in the normal position.
Likewise, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a device which comprises a rotating holder powered by a drive motor where the rotating holder holds a cartridge which undergoes a rotating mixing/stirring/agitating operation and which includes a posture controller which corrects a stop position of the rotating holder to rotate the holder back to a normal position and wherein the posture controller includes a magnet that stops the rotating holder at a position where the cartridge is in the normal position.
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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights