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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 30 March 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2023-055014 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “recessed portion” and “joining portion” of Claim 6, and the “single pipe member” of Claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
- “opening portion” of Claims 1 and 6, interpreted to be “any space that allows fluid flow”
- “joining portion” of Claim 6, interpreted to be “any component that connects other components”
- “seal member pressing portion” of Claim 6, interpreted to be “any component that performs a pressing or holding action or function”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim contains the limitation “the flange portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. Examiner notes that “a flange portion” is established at independent Claim 3, however, Claim 5 does not depend on Claim 3.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (US 2019/0299624), in view of Ishizawa et al. (US 2020/0238713) and Osborne (US 2021/0268804).
The claim rejections are presented below in order of dependence as filed by Applicant, and not in numerical order.
Regarding Claim 1, Mizutani discloses a liquid supply container (63) comprising:
- a storage portion (Fig 13, ink chamber 76) configured to contain liquid;
- a liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member (para 84: ink outlet forming portion 66) disposed at an opening end of the storage portion and including a cylindrical portion (para 84: ink outlet 65) forming an inlet/outlet portion of the liquid with respect to the storage portion;
- a valve (valve 74) disposed in the inlet/outlet portion and opening/closing communication between the storage portion and an outside (see para 90);
- a holder member (positioning structure 73) attached to an inside of the cylindrical portion (65) and movably accommodating at least a valve body of the valve (see at least para 102).
PNG
media_image1.png
846
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, although the Mizutani reference discloses a valve 74, said valve is a diaphragm-style valve, and therefore does not have a seal member as claimed by Applicant. However, Ishizawa ‘713 et al. teaches a similar structure as the Mizutaini reference, and additionally teaches that a seated, spring-actuated valve and a diaphragm valve are interchangeable functional equivalents (see para 111).
Osborne teaches a valve (110), which includes a static portion 112 and a dynamic portion 114 (see para 21 and Figs 1-2). Osborne additionally teaches “The dynamic portion 114 is movably disposed around the stem 116 of the static portion 112.” Osborne additionally teaches a sealing member (170), that “facilitates a fluid seal between the dynamic portion 114 of the valve 110 and the reservoir 34 throughout operation of the valve 110, for example, during transition of the dynamic portion 114 between opened and closed states and in both opened and closed states of the valve 110” (see para 26). Please see Fig. 2D as annotated by Examiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
880
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Osborne additionally teaches a container 82, which would have a “cylindrical portion” (e.g., the inside of container 82), an “inlet/outlet portion” (e.g. the space wherein container 82 couples with the valve assembly of Osborne). Please see Fig 3A as annotated by Examiner.
PNG
media_image3.png
1208
850
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The valve assembly of Osborne would also have a “void portion”, which is broadly interpreted by Examiner as “any space (void) that allows fluid and/or gas flow”. Please see Fig 2C, as annotated by Examiner.
PNG
media_image4.png
862
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Mizutani and Osborne references each teach the ability to control both fluid and gas flow into and out of a printing reservoir from a refill bottle. The Osborne reference additionally teaches a mechanical, biased means of controlling said flow through the use of a seated, spring-actuated valve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the simple slit diaphragm valve of the Mizutani reference with the functionally equivalent yet more robust biased valve of Osborne (as taught by both Osbore and Ishizawa ‘713 et al.) for the advantages of greater control of fluid flow.
Further regarding Claim 1, therefore, the Mizutani reference, as modified by Osborne above, would teach the remainder of Applicant’s Claim 1 limitations, to include a liquid supply container (Mizutani, 63/ Osborne 82) comprising:
- a seal member (Osborne, sealing member 170) disposed in the liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member (Osborne, valve casing 128) and constituting the valve together with the valve body (Osborne, see at least Figs. 2B, 2C, and para 26),
- the valve body (Osborne, dynamic portion 114)
configured to be moved away from the seal member (Osborne, 170) to make an opening portion (Osborne, per paras 22-24) communicating with the outside be in an open state and
configured to be seated on the seal member (Osborne, 170) to make the opening portion be in a closed state (Osborne, para 26),
- wherein the cylindrical portion (Osborne, the inside of container 82, see Fig 3A, Examiner's annotations) of the liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member forms a void portion (Osborne, Fig 3A, Examiner's annotation) surrounding the holder member (Osborne, valve housing 128) in a circumferential direction between the cylindrical portion and the holder member (Osborne, as explained at least at paras 26-31), and
- a rib (Osborne, Fig. 2C, Examiner's annotations) is disposed in the void portion and is configured to perform division of the void portion into at least two portions in the circumferential direction.
Regarding Claim 2, Mizutani et al. as modified above teaches a liquid supply container (Mizutani, 63) wherein the rib (Osborne, Fig. 2C, Examiner's annotations) is extended from at least one of the holder member and the cylindrical portion, and is formed at a position in which the void portion is divided into the at least two portions (see Fig 2C).
Regarding Claim 5, Mizutani et al. as modified above teaches a liquid supply container (Mizutani et al., 63) wherein in a valve open state of the valve, the rib or the flange portion (Osborne, Fig 2C, Examiner's annotations) is positioned between the seal member and the valve body in an unseated state in the moving direction.
Regarding Claim 7, Mizutani et al. as modified above teaches a method of manufacturing a liquid supply container (Mizutani et al., 63) comprising:
- preparing the liquid supply container (Mizutaini et al., 63) according to claim 1 (by using the combined apparatus of Mizutani and Osborne references as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above);
- inserting a liquid pouring flow path member (the Mizutaini reference teaches needle 56 at paras 90 and 100) into the inlet/outlet portion of the liquid supply container (Mizutaini, 63); and
- pouring the liquid in a state where the valve body of the valve is moved away from the seal member by insertion of the liquid pouring flow path member (normal use of the above combined apparatus),
- wherein the liquid pouring flow path member has a liquid flow path through which the liquid flows and a gas flow path for discharging gas from the storage portion (the Mizutaini reference teaches flow paths 54 and 55 at paras 100 and 108, while the Osborne reference teaches liquid ink, or print fluid, pathway 130 and air pathway 132 at Fig 2B and para 25), and
- in a state where the inlet/outlet portion faces upward (both references teach inverted filling in the Figures; when not in use, the inlet/outlet portion of both references could be considered to be "upward"),
- a lower end of the gas flow path of the liquid pouring flow path member is positioned at an upper position than a lower end of the liquid flow path in a liquid pouring posture in which the liquid pouring flow path member is inserted inside the liquid supply container to move the valve body away from the seal member (see Examiner's rationale in the preceding paragraph),
- in the liquid pouring posture (during normal use of the combined apparatus, i.e., an inverted position),
- the lower end of the gas flow path of the liquid pouring flow path member is positioned in a first portion that is obtained by the division (shown in the Figures), and
- the lower end of the liquid flow path is positioned in a second portion that is obtained by the division and different from the first portion (shown in the Figures), and
- in the pouring the liquid (during normal use of the combined apparatus, i.e., an inverted position),
- the gas is discharged from the storage portion through the gas flow path of the liquid pouring flow path member along with the pouring of the liquid through the liquid flow path of the liquid pouring flow path member (gas and liquid flow as shown above through Mizutaini items 54, 55 and/or Osborne 130,132).
Regarding Claim 8, Mizutani et al. as modified above teaches a method of manufacturing a liquid supply container (Mizutani et al., 63), wherein the liquid pouring flow path member is formed by sectioning an inside of a single pipe member along a pipe into one used as the liquid flow path and another used as the gas flow path (the "single pipe member" is interpreted by Examiner as being the same as the previously claimed liquid pouring flow path member 70. See Claim 7 above and Applicant's Specification para 34. This component is anticipated by needle 56 of the Mizutaini reference and/or the recessed channels 144 of Osborne).
Regarding Claim 3, similarly, and as shown above in the rejection of Claim 1, Mizutani et al. discloses a liquid supply container (63) comprising:
- a storage portion (Fig 13, ink chamber 76) configured to contain liquid;
- a liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member (para 84: ink outlet forming portion 66) disposed at an opening end of the storage portion and including a cylindrical portion (para 84: ink outlet 65) forming an inlet/outlet portion of the liquid with respect to the storage portion;
- a valve (valve 74) disposed in the inlet/outlet portion and opening/closing communication between the storage portion and an outside (see para 90);
- a holder member (positioning structure 73) attached to an inside of the cylindrical portion (65) and movably accommodating at least a valve body of the valve (see at least para 102).
Further regarding Claim 3, as shown above in the rejection of Claim 1 (please see Examiner’s explanations), Ishizawa ‘713 et al. teaches a functionally equivalent spring actuated, seated valve, and Osborne teaches:
- a seal member (sealing member 170) disposed in the liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member (valve casing 128) and constituting the valve together with the valve body see at least Figs. 2B, 2C, and para 26,
- the valve body (dynamic portion 114)
- configured to be moved away from the seal member (170) to make an opening portion (Fig. 3A, Examiner's annotations) communicating with the outside be in an open state and
- configured to be seated on the seal member (170) to make the opening portion be in a closed state (para 26),
- wherein the cylindrical portion (the inside of container 82, see Fig 3A, Examiner's annotations) of the liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member forms a void portion (Fig 3A, Examiner's annotation) surrounding the holder member (valve housing 128) in a circumferential direction between the cylindrical portion and the holder member, and
- a flange portion (Fig. 2C, Examiner's annotations) is disposed in the void portion and is configured to perform division of the void portion into at least two portions in a moving direction of the valve body.
The Mizutani and Osborne references each teach the ability to control both fluid and gas flow into and out of a printing reservoir from a refill bottle. The Osborne reference additionally teaches a mechanical, biased means of controlling said flow through the use of a seated, spring-actuated valve. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the simple slit diaphragm valve of the Mizutani reference with the functionally equivalent yet more robust biased valve of Osborne (as taught by both Osbore and Ishizawa ‘713 et al.) for the advantages of greater control of fluid flow.
Regarding Claim 4, Mizutani et al. as modified above teaches a liquid supply container (Mizutani et al., 63) wherein the flange portion (Osborne, Fig. 2C, Examiner's annotations) is extended from at least one of the holder member and the cylindrical portion, and is formed at a position in which the void portion is divided into the at least two portions (see Fig. 2C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious:
(Claim 6): A liquid supply container comprising:
- a storage portion… a liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member…including a cylindrical portion forming an inlet/outlet portion of the liquid; a valve disposed in the inlet/outlet portion… a holder member attached to an inside of the cylindrical portion and movably accommodating at least a valve body of the valve; and a seal member disposed in the liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member…
- wherein the liquid inlet/outlet portion forming member includes a step portion, the step portion configured to form a recessed portion accommodating the seal member on a side opposite to a joining portion with the storage portion,
- the holder member includes a seal member pressing portion secured to an inner peripheral wall of the recessed portion, the seal member pressing portion configured to press down the seal member accommodated in the recessed portion, and
- when a side closer to the opening portion in a moving direction of the valve body is defined as a tip side and a side closer to the storage portion is defined as a rear end side, a rear end of the seal member pressing portion is positioned further on the rear end side than a rear end of the seal member, and a rear end of the step portion is positioned further on the rear end side than the rear end of the seal member pressing portion.
in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
Mizutani et al. (US 2019/0299624) and Osborne (US 20210268804) are the closest prior art of record. However, the Mizutani and Osborne references are silent on these above recited features. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify the Mizutani and Osborne references to arrive at these above recited features without improper hindsight reasoning. In addition, amending the Mizutani and Osborne references to include the above recited features would improperly change the principles of operation of the Mizutani and Osborne references.
Specifically, although the combination of Mizutani et al. and Osborne teaches a valve and a sealing member as shown in the rejection of Claims 1 and 3 above, the combination is silent on a seal member pressing portion as claimed at Claim 6 and disclosed at Fig 4 (item 48) and described at least at Specification paras 29-30. Examiner concludes that the valve assembly of Applicant (fully claimed at Claim 6, only partially claimed at Claims 1 and 3) contains limitations that are fundamentally different than the valve structures of either Mizutani et al. or Osborne. Examiner concludes that there would be no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seated valve of Osborne to arrive at the valve of Applicant, and doing so would likely “break” the principle of operation for the Osborne valve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fukasawa et al. (US 2022/0227137, assigned to Applicant but containing a different joint inventive entity) teaches many of valve components as claimed at Claims 1 and 3. However, Fukasawa et al. is additionally silent on the valve as claimed at Claim 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3753