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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US 6450631 B1), hereinafter Hayashi.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a liquid container comprising: a liquid containing portion configured to contain liquid (fig. 2; inkstore container 201, inner pouch 220; col. 11, lines 53-63); an outlet portion including an outlet port configured to discharge therethrough the liquid contained in the liquid containing portion (fig. 2; second valve frame 260b, valve disc 261; col. 9, line 66 to col. 10, line 21); and a protection portion configured to cover the outlet port of the outlet portion (fig. 2; joint port 230, ID member 250; col. 9, lines 37-53, col. 11, lines 41-52), wherein the protection portion has a first opening portion located above the outlet port, and wherein where a diameter of the opening portion is defined as D, and a distance between the outlet port of the outlet portion and the opening portion in a vertical direction is defined as L, inequality (1) is satisfied:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(figs. 6, 10, 25; external distance f4 = 3.2 mm, length 13 = 9.4 mm, external diameter g5 = 8.0 mm; see col. 39, lines 25-64 and col. 40, lines 6-17).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, wherein the protection portion has a second opening portion on a side of the protection portion (fig. 2; ID member 250, ID recesses 252; col. 11, lines 41-52).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, wherein the L satisfies inequality (4):
PNG
media_image2.png
79
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
(figs. 6, 10, 25; external distance f4 = 3.2 mm, length 13 = 9.4 mm; col. 39, lines 25-64 and col. 40, lines 6-17).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, wherein L is less than 10 (fig. 25; length 13; col. 39, lines 25-64).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, wherein the liquid is ink (fig. 2; inkstore container 201, inner pouch 220; col. 10, lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi teaches a liquid replenishment system comprising: an image recording apparatus including a liquid discharge head (fig. 1; ink-jet head 160; col. 9, lines 3-36), and a liquid tank configured to contain liquid to be supplied to the liquid discharge head, the liquid tank having an inlet portion configured to receive injection of the liquid from outside (fig. 2; negative pressure control chamber unit 100, joint pipe 180; col. 9, lines 3-53); and a liquid container configured to supply the liquid to the liquid tank through the inlet portion of the liquid tank and comprising: a liquid containing portion configured to contain liquid (fig. 2; inkstore container 201, inner pouch 220; col. 11, lines 53-63); an outlet portion including an outlet port configured to discharge therethrough the liquid contained in the liquid containing portion (fig. 2; second valve frame 260b, valve disc 261; col. 9, line 66 to col. 10, line 21); and a protection portion configured to cover the outlet port of the outlet portion (fig. 2; joint port 230, ID member 250; col. 9, lines 37-53, col. 11, lines 41-52), wherein the protection portion has a first opening portion located above the outlet port, and wherein where a diameter of the opening portion is defined as D, and a distance between the outlet port of the outlet portion and the opening portion in a vertical direction is defined as L, inequality (1) is satisfied:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(figs. 6, 10, 25; external distance f4 = 3.2 mm, length 13 = 9.4 mm, external diameter g5 = 8.0 mm; see col. 39, lines 25-64 and col. 40, lines 6-17).
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.
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 6450631 B1) in view of Dietl et al. (EP 0949080 A2), hereinafter Dietl.
Hayashi teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, but fails to teach or fairly suggest L is less than 6.
However, Dietl teaches an ink cartridge comprising an outlet portion, an outlet port, a protection portion, and an opening portion wherein a distance between the outlet port of the outlet portion and the opening portion, defined as L, is less than 6 is well known in the art (fig. 3; cover 36, port 40, length l; ¶[0021]-[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the outlet port and the opening portion with the dimensions taught by Dietl into the liquid container of Hayashi in order to provide protection against leaking ink while also optimizing the form factor of the outlet portion so that it is more compact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claims 1 and 7 to correct a typographical error in the inequalities (1), however the liquid container of Hayashi meet the amended claims as detailed above in the rejections under USC § 102(a)(1). Despite the fact that Hayashi does not recite the specific inequalities of the claims, Hayashi does recite an apparatus with dimensions that fall within the inequalities. The inequalities as claimed amount to ranges for the recited quantities. From the MPEP:
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original)
See MPEP § 2103.03(I). Therefore, Hayashi’s liquid container anticipates the claims by teaching a length and diameter that satisfy the inequalities in addition to teaching the other elements of the claims.
Regarding Dietl, Dietl teaches that a length meeting the range of claim 5, recited as an inequality, is well known in the art. From the MPEP:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
See MPEP § 2144.05(I). Therefore, despite the fact that Dietl does not recite the specific inequality of the claim, it teaches a length that meets the range established by the inequality of the claim, thereby rendering the range obvious when read in combination with Hayashi.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, detailed on pg. 9 of Remarks received March 6, 2026, are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are hereby withdrawn.
The objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Specification.
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 THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853