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 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. According to Examiner’s best understanding, the amendments dated 7/1/2026 recite features that are not present in the Okazaki et al. and Mizutani et al. references. Accordingly, the corresponding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn. However, Examiner maintains that the combination of the Hayashi et al. and Sakamoto et al. references renders obvious the inventions as presently claimed for the reasons described below.
Applicant notes that Hayashi et al. and Sakamoto et al. teach different structures addressing dripping from an ink outlet (Remarks, Pages 18-19; in particular the final paragraph of Page 18 describing the “first recess” of Hayashi et al. as “structured to prevent ink dripping from the ink outlet from spreading toward the container main body side”, and the first full paragraph of Page 19, noting the “groove for preventing ink dripping” taught by Sakamoto et al.), but concludes that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to apply the groove of Sakamoto et al. to the “forward end recess” of Hayashi et al. (Remarks, Page 19, first full paragraph).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Hayashi et al. appears to recognize that, despite the presence of the annular rib, ink may leak from the outlet during or after dispensing, especially since a groove (193, which Examiner believes Applicant refers to as the “first recess”) is provided at the base of the nozzle (see Paragraph 0124). Sakamoto et al. provides multiple embodiments of a teaching that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be relevant to this issue, since it is focused instead on retaining liquid in an area immediately surrounding the outlet. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not need to rely on an explicit teaching, but would recognize that the grooves taught by Sakamoto et al. would be generally applicable to an outlet that tends to drip after dispensing, and that the application of this teaching to the bottle of Hayashi et al. may simplify and/or otherwise improve the functioning of the device (e.g., by reducing or eliminating the need for groove 193).
Applicant further argues that Sakamoto et al. “is primarily directed to improving liquid drainage along the flow direction and to liquid repellency by means of fine surface irregularities, and does not suggest the configuration of the present application”; Remarks, Page 19, first full paragraph), which implies, according to Examiner’s best understanding, that the grooves described by Sakamoto et al. are somehow not suitable for the intended use described in the instant application.
In response to applicant's argument that the grooves taught by Sakamoto et al. do not meet the requirements of the claimed invention, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Although no intended use of the groove is explicitly recited in the instant claims, it is noted that both the instant invention and Sakamoto et al. appear to describe grooves intended to retain a volume of liquid that could otherwise drip from the outlet after dispensing. If Applicant wishes to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the relevant structures should be further delineated in the claim language.
Examiner additionally notes that multiple references in the prior art of record teach a groove in a nozzle end surface for a similar purpose to that of the claimed invention. In particular, the previously cited Mizutani et al. reference (teaching a groove 231 in a distal end surface 194 to retain ink drips from an outlet 195 in the distal end surface; see Paragraph 0205 and Fig. 36), and Morrison reference (teaching a groove 5 in a distal end surface 7 to retain liquid drips from an outlet 8 in the distal end surface; see Fig. 3) provide teachings that could be applied to the bottle of Hayashi et al. to arrive at the inventions of claims 1 and 19.
For the reasons described above, and in light of the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) detailed below, Examiner has maintained the rejections of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. in view of Sakamoto et al.
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 port including a distal end surface and the opening, the annular rib protruding from an outer edge portion of the distal end surface toward a side away from the bottle body, whereby the distal end surface is recessed from a top of the annular rib to define a recess together with an inner peripheral surface of the annular rib, and wherein the port has a groove recessed in the distal end surface between the opening and the annular rib, the groove being spaced apart from both the opening and the annular rib, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Apart from the difference in terminology described below in the specification objection, Examiner notes that Figs. 6A-6B, 7A-7D, and 9A-9B do not appear to show an annular rib, making it difficult to interpret the claimed relationships between the features.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: a port including a “distal end surface” or a “groove recessed in the distal end surface” is not described in the original filed specification.
Paragraph 0007 describes “the liquid supply portion includes, at a distal end thereof away from the bottle body, an outer peripheral surface [. . .] and a port including an opening surrounded by the outer peripheral surface [. . .], and wherein the port has a groove provided therein”; and Paragraph 0050 describes “opening 94 is formed in a top surface 115 that forms the end of the nozzle 110, which points in the first direction 134”
It is not immediately clear whether top surface 115 of nozzle 110 is representative of the claimed port and/or distal end surface of the liquid supply portion. As noted in MPEP § 608.01(o), “[t]he use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.”
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 1-3, 13-16, 19, 21, and 28-32 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, each claim recites “the port includes a distal end surface facing away from the bottle body, and the opening is formed in the distal end surface, wherein the liquid supply portion includes an annular rib protruding from an outer edge portion of the distal end surface toward a side away from the bottle body, whereby the distal end surface is recessed from a top of the annular rib to define a recess together with an inner peripheral surface of the annular rib”. Claim 1 further recites “the port has a groove recessed in the distal end surface between the opening and the annular rib, the groove being spaced apart from both the opening and the annular rib”, and claim 19 recites the same with respect to “a rib” rather than “a groove”.
As described in the above specification and drawing objections, the structural relationship between the claimed features is unclear as presently claimed. In particular, absent sufficiently labeled drawings or written description for clarification, it is unclear if limitations such as “facing away from the bottle body”, “an outer edge portion of the distal end surface”, and “a top of the annular rib” require a certain relative orientation of the features (e.g., with respect to an axial or radial direction of the bottle; it is noted that the prior art includes a wide variety of similar features with complex and/or curved shapes). Further, it is unclear what is required for the groove of claim 1 or the rib of claim 19 to be “spaced apart from both the opening and the annular rib” (i.e., it is unclear whether any particular structure, e.g., portions of the distal end surface, must be located between the opening and the groove, as well as between the groove and the annular rib). In light of the above described indefiniteness, claims 1 and 19 will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding. The remaining claims are dependent upon claims 1 or 19 and thus inherit their deficiencies.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “a rib provided on the distal end surface” in line 2, after reciting “an annular rib protruding from an outer edge portion of the distal end surface” in claim 1, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite (i.e., it is unclear whether the annular rib required by claim 1 would also satisfy the limitations of claim 16).
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites “a recess in which the port is disposed” in lines 2-3, after reciting “the distal end surface is recessed from a top of the annular rib to define a recess together with an inner peripheral surface of the annular rib” in claim 1, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
In light of the above-described indefiniteness, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 19, 21, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2020189454) in view of Sakamoto et al. (JP 2018062372). All references to the written description of Hayashi et al. contained herein are made to the attached machine translation into English: JP2020189454-MT. All references to the written description of Sakamoto et al. contained herein are made to the attached machine translation into English: JP2018062372-MT.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 16, 19, 21, and 32, Hayashi et al. disclose a bottle (130; Figs. 5-8) for use with a recording apparatus including a recording head for discharging liquid and a liquid tank for containing liquid supplied to the recording head (see Figs. 4 and 13), the bottle comprising: a bottle body (131) for containing the liquid; and a liquid supply portion (161) for connection to a supplied portion included in the liquid tank (Paragraph 0069), the liquid supply portion including a flow path for passing the liquid from the bottle body to the liquid tank (181; Paragraph 0150), wherein the liquid supply portion includes, at a distal end thereof away from the bottle body, an outer peripheral surface (177; Fig. 7) for connection to an inner peripheral surface of the supplied portion (see Fig. 13) and a port including an opening (184) surrounded by the outer peripheral surface for supplying the liquid to the liquid tank from the flow path (Paragraph 0150; Fig. 7).
Hayashi et al. further disclose that the port includes a distal end surface facing away from the bottle body, and the opening is formed in the distal end surface (184 is formed on tip surface 179; Paragraph 0101), wherein the liquid supply portion includes an annular rib (189) protruding from an outer edge portion of the distal end surface toward a side away from the bottle body, whereby the distal end surface is recessed from a top of the annular rib to define a recess together with an inner peripheral surface of the annular rib (recess 188; see Paragraph 0105). Hayashi et al. do not disclose that the port has a groove recessed in the distal end surface between the opening and the annular rib, the groove being spaced apart from both the opening and the annular rib. However, it is noted that Hayashi et al. disclose a similar arrangement at the base of the liquid supply portion to prevent ink leakage (see Paragraph 0124).
Sakamoto et al. teach a bottle (15B; Figs. 5-7) with a port with a distal end surface (201) having a plurality of grooves (223) recessed in the distal end surface and formed around the opening. Sakamoto et al. teach this feature as a means for preventing dripping and leakage by providing a “clean pour” and improving “liquid-cutting performance” (Paragraphs 0095-0098).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the distal end surface of the port of Hayashi et al. with a plurality of grooves around the opening, as taught by Sakamoto et al., in order to prevent dripping and leakage (in particular, to provide a “clean pour” that reduces leakage into the groove at the base of the liquid supply portion), thus arriving at the invention of claims 1 and 3.
When modifying Hayashi et al. in view of Sakamoto et al., as described above regarding claim 1, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the spaces between the grooves taught by Sakamoto et al. are, in effect, ribs similar to the annular rib already disclosed by Hayashi et al. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the plurality of grooves/ribs taught by Sakamoto et al. projecting up from the surface of the port around the opening, rather than cutting grooves into the surface of the port. Doing so would simplify the construction and manufacturing of the device with similar drip and leak preventing effect. Thus, the combined invention of Hayashi et al. and Sakamoto et al. described above also renders obvious the invention of claims 16, 19, 21, and 32 (see annotated Fig. 6 of Sakamoto et al. below, which additionally shows in dashed lines how the annular rib disclosed by Hayashi et al. could be incorporated in the modification).
PNG
media_image1.png
150
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Sakamoto et al., annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto et al. further teach that the grooves may be bent (see the embodiment of Fig. 9) in order to increase the length of the groove and thus improve leakage prevention (Paragraph 0103).
When modifying Hayashi et al. in view of Sakamoto et al., as described above regarding claim 1, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the combined invention with bent grooves, as taught by Sakamoto et al., in order to improve leakage prevention.
Regarding claim 28, Hayashi et al. further disclose that the distal end of the liquid supply portion includes, within the outer peripheral surface, a recess (188) in which the port is disposed (Paragraph 0105; Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 29-30, the grooves and ribs of the combined invention are taught by Sakamoto et al. to include a cross-sectional shape capable of generating a capillary force and including corners (see Fig. 6; Sakamoto et al. describes sizing the grooves for liquid drainage during flow in Paragraph 0098, but the resulting size and shape of the grooves and ribs would also be capable of generating a capillary force for any drips left on the port after dispensing is complete).
Regarding claims 15 and 31, Hayashi et al.-Sakamoto et al. in combination as described above render obvious the bottle according to claims 13 and 29, but do not explicitly disclose that the cross-sectional shape of the groove or the rib is semi-elliptical or semicircular.
However, Sakamoto et al. teaches that the cross-sectional shape of the groove is not limited to a square shape, and that the side walls may instead be angled (Paragraph 0101), which would alter the shape of both the grooves and the ribs in the combined invention. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the benefit of capillary action created by the corners of the cross-sectional shape of the groove may be outweighed by manufacturing considerations or other factors that would make a rounded (i.e., semi-elliptical or semicircular) shape more desirable to produce.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the grooves and/or ribs of the combined invention with a cross-sectional shape that is semi-elliptical or semicircular as a matter of design choice. Applicant has placed no criticality on a cross-sectional shape being semi-elliptical or semicircular (in fact, it is noted that this is not a preferred shape; see Paragraph 0034 of the specification), and it appears that the combined invention would work appropriately if the grooves and/or ribs had the claimed cross-sectional shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for additional examples of bottles having grooves and/or fluid collecting features at an outlet end.
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 MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights