DETAILED ACTION
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 and 11 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. The claims recite wherein “at least one integrated circuit contact pad are integrally formed in a single monolithic molded body of the interface structure…” This does not seem possible as such an integrated circuit contact pad could only be manufactured from different materials beforehand and mounted to a molded body afterward. Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claims 1 and 11, they are also rejected on this basis.
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) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa (7,090,341) in view of Yamamoto et al. (6,824,258).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Miyazawa teaches a print liquid supply interface structure to fluidically connect a fluid supply container to a receiving station, the print quid supply interface structure comprising:
a reservoir (fig. 3, item 33), and
a print liquid supply interface structure (fig. 4, item 23 and entire bottom surface of cartridge 3) to fluidically connect the reservoir to a receiving station, the print liquid supply interface structure including:
a liquid interface (fig. 4, item 23 and entire bottom surface of cartridge 3) fluidically couplable to a needle (see fig. 4, note that a needle is necessarily inserted into the ink supply port 23) of the receiving station, the liquid interface including a seal (see fig. 4, note that, if there was not a seal, ink would leak out of the cartridge, and thus there is necessarily a seal); and
a needle receiving portion (fig. 4, item 23) extending up to the liquid interface defining a needle insertion direction (fig. 4, upward on page);
a liquid channel (see figs. 10, 11, channel from 71 the interface 23) to fluidically connect the liquid interface to a reservoir (see figs. 10, 11) of the fluid supply container,
the liquid channel to fluidically connect the liquid interface to a reservoir of the fluid supply container, the liquid channel defining a liquid flow path for fluid to flow from a liquid channel input (figs. 10, 11, item 71) wherein the liquid channel input is positioned relative to the liquid interface such that fluid flows in a first direction (fig. 10, horizontal on page, fig. 11, into page) perpendicular to the needle insertion direction (figs. 10, 11, downward on page), in a second direction (fig. 11, horizontal on page on route 5), perpendicular to the first direction and perpendicular to the needle insertion direction (see figs. 10, 11), and then opposite the needle insertion direction to the liquid interface (see illustration below), wherein the reservoir connecting portion includes the liquid channel input at an upstream end thereof (see illustration below, Note that “liquid interface” has not been defined with much specificity, and ).
Miyazawa does not go into any significant detail about its interface structure and thus does not teach wherein the reservoir connecting portion of the liquid channel, the liquid interface, at least one guide slot, and at least one integrated circuit contact pad are integrally formed in a single monolithic molded body of the interface structure, the guide slot disposed on an edge opposite the reservoir connecting portion and the contact pad disposed between the guide slot and the liquid interface along the second direction. Yamamoto teaches this (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6, Note connecting portion 28B and liquid interface 28, integrated circuit with contacts 18/19/26, and guide slot in item 22 in that order in the second direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the interface disclosed by Yamamoto to the reservoir disclosed by Miyazawa because doing so would amount to combining a known interface structure with a known liquid reservoir to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Miyazawa does not go into detail about the exterior of its cartridge, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to look to Yamamoto for such a teaching.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 1 and 11, an integrated circuit including at least one contact pad having a contact pad surface approximately perpendicular to the first direction (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 2 and 12, respectively, wherein the at least one contact pad is offset from the liquid interface along the second direction (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 1 and 11, respectively, further comprising a front push area adjacent the liquid interface, the front push area to contact a protective structure of the receiving station to facilitate passage of a needle into the liquid interface (Yamamoto, note that any portion of the interface contacting the receiving structure can be said to meet the limitation).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 1 and 11, respectively, further comprising a guide feature to facilitate entry of a needle along the needle insertion direction (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6, Note guide/identification slots on 22/23 on both sides that “facilitate entry” of the needle on insertion).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 5 and 15, respectively, wherein the guide feature comprises a guide slot to engage a guide rail on the receiving station to prevent movement in the first direction and the second direction (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6, Note guide/identification slots on 22/23 on both sides that “facilitate entry” of the needle on insertion).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 6 and 16 respectively, wherein the guide slot is adjacent the liquid interface in the first direction, and wherein the guide slot extends along the print liquid supply interface parallel to the needle insertion direction (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6, Note guide/identification slots on 22/23 on both sides.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 5 and 15, respectively, wherein the guide feature comprises lateral guide slots on opposite ends of the print liquid supply interface, the lateral guide slots to engage guide rails on the receiving station to prevent movement in the first direction and the second direction (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto Nagashima teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 8 and 18, respectively, wherein the lateral guide slots are on the opposite edges of the print liquid supply interface on the opposite sides of the liquid interface different from a side of the liquid interface structure including a reservoir connecting portion of the liquid channel to fluidically connect the liquid channel to the reservoir, and wherein the lateral guide slots extend along the print liquid supply interface parallel to the needle insertion direction (Yamamoto, see fig. 4-6).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 1 and 11, respectively, further comprising a recess in a front wall of the print liquid supply interface structure adjacent the liquid interface (Yamamoto, see figs. 4-6, Note recess 40).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 1 and 11, wherein the single monolithic molded body includes a support wall (Yamamoto, fig. 6, note wall around entirety of item 21), and wherein the at least one guide slot (Yamamoto, figs. 2-6, note that slots in 22, 23 project outward from wall 21) and the liquid interface project from the support wall (Miyazawa, see illustration above, Yamamoto, figs. 2-6, Note that upon combination, any portion of the bottom of Yamamoto’s reservoir 14 can be said to “project from” the support wall. Note that Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines “project” as “cause to jut out.” Any one the components shown can be said to “jut out” from the support wall because any all the components occupy different spaces from the support wall. The dictionary definition does not require that both of the thing projecting from and the thing projected from are part of the same whole).
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.04, using a one-piece construction instead of a previously disclosed structure is an obvious engineering choice unless is produces a new an unexpected result. Here, it is not clear what new and unexpected result is obtained by the monolithic structure of the claimed invention, and thus the one-piece construction is being taken as obvious.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Miyazawa in view of Yamamoto teaches the print liquid supply interface structure of claims 21 and 23, respectively, wherein the at least one integrated circuit contact pad is disposed on an inner surface of the support wall (Yamamoto, see figs. 7, 8, item 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Yamamoto does not teach a guide slot. Applicant notes that Yamamoto’s items 22 and 23 are detailed as ID portions for identifying a type of ink reservoir. While this may be the case, it does not negate the fact that there are guide slots in items 22 and 23 that mesh with protruding portions in the cartridge bay, as shown in Figure 9, to guide the cartridge into its proper bay.
Additionally, the claim has not defined “guide slot” with any specificity whatsoever. Thus, even if the slots in items 22 and 23 did not serve the purpose of guiding the cartridge upon insertion into the cartridge bay, one could still argue that any slot, including those of items 22 and 23, can be called guide slots without any further information from the claims.
Applicant further contends that Yamamoto does not teach a single monolithic molded body. According to Applicant, Yamamoto’s container is composed of multiple separate assembled components, not a single monolithic molded body. Applicant points out that Yamamoto’s memory medium holder 17 can be moved relative to molded body 21. While this may be true, the claim itself requires that “at least one integrated circuit contact pad are integrally formed in a single monolithic molded body.” First, this is not possible as the such contact pads are made of a different material and then mounted to the molded body. Thus, the claim itself does not have all of the components it recites integrally formed as claimed. Secondly, and to Applicant’s point regarding Yamamoto’s memory medium holder, there are necessarily certain components mounted to the interface after the interface is molded.
Further, it should be noted that according to MPEP 2144.04, using a one-piece construction instead of a previously disclosed structure is an obvious engineering choice unless is produces a new an unexpected result. Here, it is not clear what new and unexpected result is obtained by the monolithic structure of the claimed invention, and thus the one-piece construction is being taken as obvious.
The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, RICARDO MAGALLANEZ can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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
Prosecution Insights