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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/10/2024 and 9/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,384,137 to Putman.
With regard to Claim 1, Putman teaches (figs. 1-2) a cartridge (10) comprising:
an absorbent (13, 14 and 15) configured to hold liquid (col. 3, lines 5-7);
a tank (12) including an opening (as shown in fig. 1) and an absorbent holder (31, 32 and 33) configured to accommodate the absorbent (13, 14 and 15) (col. 2, line 64-col. 3, line 4);
a lid member (18) joined to the opening of the tank (col. 2, lines 39-42 and col. 3, lines 17-18). and
a partition member (16) arranged between the lid member (18) and the absorbent (13, 14 and 15) located in the absorbent holder (col 2, lines 39-42),
wherein
the lid member (18) includes a first engagement portion (47-52) (col. 4, lines 9-20),
the partition member (16) includes a second engagement portion (36-41) (col. 4, lines 9-20),
the first engagement portion (47-52) and the second engagement portion (36-41) are engaged with each other (col. 4, lines 9-20) and
parts of outer peripheries of surfaces of the lid member (18) and the partition member (16) facing each other have an interval therebetween in an overlapping direction in which the lid member (18) and the partition member (16) overlap each other (col. 5, lines 30-36).
With regard to Claim 2, Putman teaches wherein the first engagement portion (47-52) is a supporting column that protrude from the lid member (18) toward the partition member (16), and the second engagement portion (36-41) is a hole (3 sets of dash lines corresponding with the first engagement portions) that penetrates the partition member (16) and that receives the supporting column (fig. 2).
With regard to Claim 3, Putman teaches wherein the supporting column protrudes toward the absorbent holder, beyond the partition member (see fig. 2—lip around support column, where element numbers (48, 50 and 52) and figs. 6-8).
With regard to Claim 4, Putman teaches wherein the supporting column has a shape tapered in a direction away from the lid member, and a diameter of the hole is smaller than an outer diameter at a first position in the supporting column, and is larger than an outer diameter at a second position in the supporting column, the second position located in the direction away from the lid member, from the first position (figs. 6-8).
With regard to Claim 5, Putman teaches further comprising at least one spacer (86 or 88) between the lid member (18) and the partition member (16). It is noted that anything attached to the lid facing the partition can be construed as a spacer.
With regard to Claim 6, Putman teaches wherein the spacer is arranged in the lid member or the partition member, and is arranged at a position farther away from a center of the gravity of the lid member than the supporting column is (figs. 6-8).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putman as modified by USP 6,161,927 to Long et al. “Long.”
With regard to claim 11, Putman teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the lid member includes a groove at a position corresponding to the supporting column.
However, Long teaches wherein the lid member includes a groove at a position corresponding to the supporting column (fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Putman with the teachings of Long
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. US 2024/0343040 and US 2024/0343044 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 11 of US 2024/0343040 and US 2024/0343044. US 2024/0343040 and US 2024/0343044 use slightly different terminology and is of slightly different form than the claims of the present Application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the claim of the Application are fully covered by the claim of US 2024/0343040 and US 2024/0343044. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers (or paragraphs or figures) in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. The specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim. Other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 12-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claims 7-9 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein one of the lid member and the partition member that faces the lid member or the partition member in which the spacer is arranged has a recess portion that receives the spacer. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claims 10 and 13-14 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the spacer is tilted with respect to the lid member and the partition member. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 12 is the inclusion of the limitations further comprising a relay member that is arranged between the lid member and the partition member and that surrounds the supporting column. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 15 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the number of the supporting column is one. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 16 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the outer periphery of the surface of the lid member facing the partition member is spaced away from the partition member. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claims 17-19 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the lid member includes a key portion extending along a plane forming the lid member, the partition member includes a hole extending along the plane, and the key portion and the hole are engaged with each other. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. 2009/0219337 discloses a method of recycling a container member containing a waste liquid absorbing member includes: removing at least a part of waste liquid from the waste liquid absorbing member having absorbed the waste liquid; and disposing the waste absorbing member, which at least a part of the waste liquid is removed from, in the container member.
WO 2019012786 A1 discloses a key member attachment portion 531 is provided as a hole of the liquid consumption device 500H that receives the insertion of the key member 530. The key member attachment portion 531 is provided in the vicinity of the container insertion port 521. The key member attachment portion 531 has a key detection portion 532 that detects the insertion of the key member 530. The key detection unit 532 is configured of a sensor that optically detects the key member 530 inserted into the key member attachment unit 531. The key detection unit 532 may be configured of a switch that changes the electrical conduction state by inserting and removing the key member attachment portion 531 of the key member 530.
US 20010046400 A1 discloses a foam reservoir (5) provided within an ink interior chamber of the base (1) for storing ink. The clip (3) having width less than the interior chamber provided beneath the lid (2), so that a space is maintained between lid and foam reservoir.
Communication with the PTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON A POLK whose telephone number is (571)270-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 5:30-3:30.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
SHARON A. POLK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/Sharon Polk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853