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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0405577, in view of Willis, U.S. Pat. No. 6,349,191; Michlin, U.S. Pat. No. 5,337,126; Martin et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0133883; Furuhata, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0222915; Numagami et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0126131; and Hiroshi, JP 2004-102137.
The reasoning of the rejections of claims 1-13 and 15 in the Office Action dated 2/9/26 are repeated herein in their entirety with the following additions:
Regarding independent claim 1, Noguchi et al. further teach the attachment portion including an abutted surface (the surface of the attachment portion that abuts against the toner container during refilling) configured to be contacted by the toner container when the toner container is attached to the attachment portion (in tight direct contact so as to avoid making a toner mess).
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 15, the combination of prior art, particularly Hirsohi, further teaches wherein the first contact portion, the second contact portion, and the third contact portion [and later the fourth contact portion] are discrete projecting portions different from one another, project downwardly from the bottom surface of the cartridge, and are configured to directly contact the horizontal plane. As Applicant admits, Remarks at page 12, “Hiroshi describes legs 90 on a waste toner container … projecting downwardly from a bottom surface”. Hiroshi provides such legs so as to directly contact the horizontal plane on which the cartridge is placed while being worked upon.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the amendments still fail to overcome the applied art. Although the “portions” are now “discrete projecting portions”, nothing limits one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing from making obvious adjustments to the size and proportions, or the shape of the projections, to meet the recited limitations.
There is no indication that having projections of the recited size and proportion would perform any differently than those of any other proportioned legs. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Hiroshi provides the legs to obtain stable contact with a horizontal surface while the cartridge is being worked upon. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would not choose sizes and proportions that would lead to unstable contact when the purpose of adding the legs is to provide stable contact.
Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant for providing stable contact. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). Hiroshi, again, provides the legs to obtain stable contact. Hiroshi also describes how the various disturbing forces interact with the center of gravity of that being worked upon, and provides legs sufficient to accommodate those forces without toppling. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, having read and understood Hiroshi, would provide legs of a suitable shape so as to prevent toppling, despite the interaction of the various disturbing forces’ interaction with the center of gravity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Hiroshi's legs 90 are bottom support legs for supporting a waste toner container on a flat surface. They are not an abutted surface configured to be contacted by a toner container when the toner container is attached to an attachment portion.” Remarks at page 12; and,
None of the prior art teaches placing the attachment surface overlapping the first region. Remarks at page 13.
The claims do not place the contact portions at the attachment portion, nor on the abutted surface. The features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Hiroshi places legs on the object being worked upon. Hiroshi does so to prevent toppling despite the interaction between various disturbing forces while the cartridge is being worked upon and the cartridge’s center of gravity. As Hiroshi places the legs outside of the center of gravity and disturbing forces, so as to prevent toppling. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, having read and understood Hiroshi, would place the attachment portion in the first region so as to prevent toppling. Applicant is invited to present some evidence to show that placing the legs of Hiroshi anywhere else would still prevent toppling, despite the interaction of the disturbing forces and the cartridge’s center of gravity. Without such evidence, Applicants’ conclusory argument finds no evidentiary support, and is thus unpersuasive.
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 SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights