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 has sufficiently amended Claim 6 to resolve the claim objection stated in the non-final rejection (dated 3/4/2026). Therefore, this objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant has sufficiently amended Claim 6 to resolve the 112(b) rejection stated in the non-final rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, as discussed below, the Examiner has also rejected claim 6 under a 103 rejection in view of Shinada further in view of Putnam.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/17/2026, with respect to the following have been fully considered:
Traversal of Rejection Under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/ 35 USC 103: Examiner acknowledges that Applicant has incorporated Claims 4 & 5 into the independent claim 1. Applicant’s amendment, which changed the scope of the independent claim by incorporating the limitation “the lid member includes a columnar member and the partition member includes a fitting member, the columnar member being fitted into the fitting member”, necessitates a new grounds of rejection. As will be discussed below, the Examiner has now rejected claims 1-3, 13, & 14 under a 103 rejection in view of Shinada further in view of Putman. Additionally, the Examiner has now rejected claims 7-12 in view of Shinada further in view of Putman.
Traversal of Rejection Under 35 USC 103: Examiner acknowledges Applicant has canceled 4-5, and therefore the traversal of rejection regarding these claims is now moot. Examiner notes that Applicant does not argue that Putman contains a columnar member and a fitting member, but rather directs their arguments towards the motivation to modify the cartridge taught by Shinada with the columnar member and the fitting member taught by Putman. Although Applicant contends that there is no motivation to combine, the Examiner notes MPEP sections 2145.X.B-C that further emphasize that it would be obvious to try this combination (also see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)) and moreover “a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references that is found in the prior art is an appropriate rationale for determining obviousness” (also see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). In an effort to advance prosecution of the application, the Examiner has provided an alternative motivation to combine Putman to further emphasize the variety of motivations available to combine this reference with Shinada.
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 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinada et al. (JP 2001121715 A; herein referred to as “Shinada”) in view of Putman (US 7384137 B2).
With respect to Claim 1, Shinada teaches a cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) comprising:
an absorber (i.e., “porous material 6”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) configured to hold a liquid;
a tank (i.e., “container body 3”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) including an opening (opening of “container body 3”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) and an absorber chamber (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B),
the absorber (i.e., “porous material 6”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) is accommodated in the absorber chamber (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B);
a lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) joined (i.e., “lid 4…sealing the opening of the container body 3”; Shinada: ¶0006) to the opening of the tank (i.e., “container body 3”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B); and
a partition member (i.e., “spacer 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8A-B) disposed between the absorber (i.e., “porous material 6”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) and the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) located inside the absorber chamber (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B),
and including a protruding portion (i.e., “ribs 34 and 35”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8B), wherein
the protruding portion (i.e., “ribs 34 and 35”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8B) of the partition member (i.e., “spacer 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8A-B) abuts on the absorber (i.e., “porous material 6”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B), and
the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) and the partition member (i.e., “spacer 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8A-B) are separate members.
Shinada is silent on
the lid member includes a columnar member and
the partition member includes a fitting member,
the columnar member being fitted into the fitting member
Putnam teaches:
the lid member (i.e., “container lid 18”; Putman: ¶0038; Fig. 6) includes a columnar member (i.e., one of the “connecting posts” “47”-“52”; Putman: ¶0038; Fig. 6) and
the partition member (i.e., “spacing member 16”; Putman: ¶0031, ¶0038, Fig. 2 & 6) includes a fitting member (i.e., one of the “holes or openings” “36”-“41”; Putman: ¶0031, ¶0038, Fig. 2 & 6),
the columnar member (i.e., one of the “connecting posts” “47”-“52”; Putman: ¶0038; Fig. 6) being fitted into the fitting member (i.e., one of the “holes or openings” “36”-“41”; Putman: ¶0031, ¶0038, Fig. 2 & 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge taught by Shinada to include a columnar member on the lid member and fitting member on the partition member and for the columnar member to be fitted into the fitting member, because doing so enables the lid member and partition member to be more securely joined (i.e., “the container lid is fixedly connected to the spacing member”; Putman: ¶0031, Fig. 6). This fixed connection is beneficial for multiple reasons, with a couple listed below (though this is of course not an exhaustive list): This modification ensures the partition member is correctly positioned within the cartridge when the lid is fixed to the cartridge. Additionally, it is also beneficial in that it enables a user to more easily remove the partition member from the cartridge.
With respect to Claim 2, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 1, wherein the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011 & ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8B) exerts a force on the partition member (i.e., “spacer 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8A-B) in order to press the absorber (i.e., the “porous material 6” is “compressed by the lid 4 via the spacer 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8B).
With respect to Claim 3, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 1, wherein a welding rib (i.e., “seals the opening 4 of the container body 3 by joining the lid 4 by welding or the like”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) is formed on the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) and the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) and the tank (i.e., “container body 3”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) are welded to each other (i.e., “seals the opening 4 of the container body 3 by joining the lid 4 by welding or the like”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B). Note that “welding or the like” (Shinada: ¶0006-0011) includes welding the lid member to the tank via a welding rib on the lid member.
With respect to Claim 6, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge according to claim 5 (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B).
Shinada is silent on wherein
the columnar member is a riveting pin,
the fitting member is a catch portion,
the riveting pin is thermally riveted to form a riveted portion, and
the riveted portion and the catch portion are fitted to each other.
Putman teaches wherein
the columnar member (i.e., one of the “connecting posts” “47”-“52”; Putman: ¶0038; Fig. 6) is a riveting pin (Putman Fig. 6 depicts the connecting posts “47”-“52” to be a riveting pin with a flange; Putman: ¶0038 & ¶0040; Fig. 6),
the fitting member (i.e., one of the “holes or openings” “36”-“41”; Putman: ¶0038; Fig. 6) is a catch portion (i.e., one of the “holes or openings” “36”-“41” which engages with one of the connecting posts “47”-“52”; Putman: ¶0031, ¶0038, Fig. 2 & 6),
the riveting pin (Putman Fig. 6 depicts the connecting posts “47”-“52” as a riveting pin; Putman: ¶0038; Fig. 6) is thermally riveted (i.e., “infrared welding”; Putman: ¶0043 & ¶0033) to form a riveted portion (i.e., “flange” “60”-“65”; Putman: ¶0040, Fig. 2 & 6). Putman teaches that the riveting pins (which include a riveted portion i.e., “flange”; Putman: ¶0040, Fig. 2 & 6) “may be formed…by a variety of methods similar to those described for the ink container body 12 and the spacer 16” (Putman: ¶0043), such as the thermal method of “infrared welding” (Putman: ¶0033).
the riveted portion (i.e., “flange” “60”-“65”; Putman: ¶0040, Fig. 2 & 6) and the catch portion (i.e., one of the “holes or openings” “36”-“41” which engages with one of the connecting posts “47”-“52”; Putman: ¶0031, ¶0038, Fig. 2 & 6) are fitted to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge taught by Shinada to include a riveting pin on the lid member and a catch portion on the partition member, because doing so enables the lid member and partition member to be more securely joined (i.e., “the container lid is fixedly connected to the spacing member”; Putman: ¶0031, Fig. 6). This fixed connection being secured via a riveting pin on the lid member and a catch portion on the partition member is beneficial for multiple reasons, with a couple listed below (though this is of course not an exhaustive list): This modification further ensures the partition member is correctly positioned within the cartridge when the lid is fixed to the cartridge. Additionally, it is also beneficial in that it enables a user to more easily remove the partition member from the cartridge.
With respect to Claim 7, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge according to claim 1 (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B), wherein
an atmosphere communication port (i.e., “11”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011; Fig. Fig. 4 & 8B) through which the absorber chamber (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) may communicate with an atmosphere outside the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) is provided substantially at a center of the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B), and
a circular recess is formed around the atmosphere communication port (i.e., “11”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011; Fig. Fig. 4 & 8B). Shinada is silent on the shape of the recess however Figures 4 and 8B imply that the recessed shape formed around the atmosphere communication port is circular. Moreover, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, although dimensions are unstated in the applied prior art, this does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to Claim 8, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 7, wherein
a lid member wall rib (i.e., “rib 9”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) is formed on the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) so as to surround the atmosphere communication port (i.e., “11”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011; Fig. Fig. 4 & 8B), and
a partition member wall rib (i.e., “43”; Shinada: ¶0028, Fig. 8B) is formed on the partition member (i.e., “spacer 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8A-B).
With respect to Claim 9, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 8, wherein a notch (i.e., any of the notches formed in “43”; Shinada: Fig. 8A) is formed at a portion of the partition member wall rib (i.e., “43”; Shinada: ¶0028, Fig. 8B).
With respect to Claim 10, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge according to claim 8 (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B), wherein the lid member wall rib (i.e., “rib 9”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) and the partition member wall rib (i.e., “43”; Shinada: ¶0028, Fig. 8B) abut on each other (Shinada: ¶0006-0011, ¶0028; Fig. 8B).
With respect to Claim 11, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 7, wherein the atmosphere communication port (i.e., “11”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011; Fig. Fig. 4 & 8B) communicates with a print head configured to eject liquid (i.e., “recording head 20” which communicates with the cartridge (including the “atmosphere communication port 11”) via “ink supply port 5”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 6 & Fig. 8B). Note that Fig. 6 shows the atmosphere communication port of the cartridge communicating with a printhead, however in this figure the cartridge is using an alternate embodiment with a different partition member (whereas Fig. 8B shows the partition member discussed throughout this report). The cartridge in Fig. 8B, and its atmosphere communication port therein, would communicate with the printhead in a similar manner as depicted in Fig. 6.
With respect to Claim 12, Shinada in view of Putman teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 1, the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) comprising a member (an additional one of the “plurality of spacers 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8A-B) disposed between the lid member (i.e., “cover body 4”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) and the partition member (i.e., “spacer 30”; Shinada: ¶0014-0019, Fig. 4 & 8A-B). Shinada teaches: “For providing rigidity for maintaining the entire shape of the spacer 30, and a plurality of spacers 30 are provided as necessary” (Shinada: ¶0014-0019).
Shinada is silent on a tubular member, only teaching the member and not its shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to shape the member to be tubular, since the applicant has not disclosed that the member’s shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the member shaped as depicted in Fig. 8A, element “30”.
With respect to Claim 13, Shinada teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 1, wherein the tank (i.e., “container body 3”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) consists of one absorber chamber (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B), and the cartridge consists of one absorber (i.e., “porous material 6”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B) accommodated in the absorber chamber (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 4 & 8B).
With respect to Claim 14, Shinada teaches the cartridge (Shinada: Abstract; Fig. 4 & 8B) according to claim 1, wherein the tank (i.e., “container body 3”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 9) has a plurality of the absorber chambers (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 9), and the number of the absorbers (i.e., “porous material 6”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 9) accommodated in each of the plurality of absorber chambers (i.e., “ink chamber 2”; Shinada: ¶0006-0011, Fig. 9) is two or more (Shinada: Fig. 9). Shinada teaches this alternative embodiment of the cartridge, having a plurality of absorber chambers and corresponding absorbers (Shinada: Fig. 9).
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 SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 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, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights