DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims so that they are no longer directed toward a "chemical storage apparatus" separately from a "chemical dispensing device." In addition, claims 11-17 now depend from claim 1, SO they cannot be drawn to different inventions from claim 1. In view of these amendments, the Restriction Requirement between claims 1-10 and claims 11-17 is believed to be moot.
This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement was based on the claims as presented at the time. The groups of inventions still have distinct particulars which result in different combination of elements. The search for the inventions would be different and the examination of all the inventions of the groups together would place an undue burden on the Examiner already substantially limited in examination time
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-17 will be rejoined if allowable subject matter is found in claim 1.
Claims 18-20 will rejoined if subject matter of claim 1 is found in claim 18.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawing fail to show the relationship between the chemical storage apparatus and the chemical dispensing apparatus.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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.
In regards to claim 1, the phrase of “in a one-touch manner” is deemed vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what would constitute attaching or detaching the receptacle in a one-touch manner.
In regards to claim 4, the phrase of “the first plate includes a first body with a recess” is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the recess of claim 4 is intended to be distinct from the recess recited in claim 2. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the first plate includes a first body with the recess.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US 2009/0262153) in view of Giezendanner (US 2012/0184932).
In regards to claim 1, Tamaki teaches a sub-tank (120) of an ink cartridges comprising:
a reservoir member (121, reservoir) provides an ink storage chamber (123) that stores ink (fig. 6-7; para. 38-39);
a sensor receiving portion (131) provides a first fixing member located on an upper surface of a groove of the reservoir member, and a mounting hole (137a) which corresponds to a hole in the reservoir member (second fixing member) is located on a lower surface of the reservoir member (fig. 6-7; para. 41-42);
a level detecting sensor (138) provides a plurality of sensors (136H/136L) that are used to detect liquid level within the reservoir member (fig. 6-7; para. 41-44)
a casing member (137, receptacle) provides a space for the plurality of sensors (fig. 6-7; para. 41-42);
a mounting screw (139) and the mounting hole (137a) together with upper section of walls provide coupling for attaching or detaching the casing member of the level detecting sensor to or from the reservoir member (fig. 6-7; para. 41-42).
Tamaki does not explicitly teach first and second coupling members for attaching or detaching the receptacle to or from the first fixing member and the second fixing member.
However, Giezendanner teaches a fluid collection container (2) which is removable from a suction pump housing (1). Giezendanner teaches a capacitive filling level sensor (7) on the suction pump housing which is used to detect the liquid level in the fluid collection container (fig. 1-3; para. 47, 52-53).
Giezendanner teaches the fluid collection container and the suction pump housing comprise upper and lower locking pins (21, 22) together with a recess (20) that connects with a locking element (3) (fig. 1-3; para. 47-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the locking pins and the recess to locking element of Giezendanner onto the reservoir member and casing member of Tamaki because Giezendanner teaches it will provide releasable securing between the parts (para. 29, 48).
In regards to claim 2, Tamaki and Giezendanner, where Tamaki teaches
the casing member (137, receptacle) comprises includes a first plate which provides the recess for the sensors (136H/136L), where the casing member which provides a first surface contacts the sidewall of the reservoir member (fig. 6-7; para. 41-42), and
a level detection plate (135) provides a second plate that is accommodated in the recess and covers a wall of the recess (fig. 6-7; para. 41-42).
In regards to claim 3, Tamaki and Giezendanner, where Tamaki teaches the first surface is flat (fig. 6-7).
In regards to claim 7, Tamaki and Giezendanner, where Tamaki teaches the plurality of sensors are used to detect the amount of ink/liquid within the ink storage chamber (fig. 6-7; para. 41-42).
In regards to claim 8, Tamaki and Giezendanner, where Tamaki does not explicitly teach the liquid level sensor comprises a capacitance-type liquid level sensor.
However, Giezendanner teaches use of a filling level sensor (7) comprising electrodes (70/71) to detect the amount of liquid within the container (2). Giezendanner teaches the filling level sensor uses capacitance to precisely determine the filling level of the container (fig. 1-4, 6-7; para. 52-53, 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the filling level sensor of Giezendanner onto the liquid level sensor of Tamaki because Giezendanner teaches it will provide precise determination of the filling level (para. 60).
In regards to claim 9, Tamaki and Giezendanner, where Tamaki teaches the ink storage chamber comprises a filter (61b) and a sealing float (133) (valve) which restricts the flow through the ink storage (fig. 6-7; para. 30, 46, 67).
In regards to claim 10, Tamaki and Giezendanner, where Tamaki does not explicitly teach the chemical tank, the first plate, the second plate, the first fixing member, the second fixing member, and the receptacle each include a non-conductive material.
However, Giezendanner teaches use plastic (non-conductive material) for the pump housing and the fluid collection container (para. 46, 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the plastic material of Giezendanner onto the reservoir member, level detecting sensor and casing member of Tamaki because Giezendanner teaches it will aid in providing a high degree of measurement accuracy (para. 66).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights