DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
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) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crozet et al. (2002/0130138).
Regarding claim 1, Crozet teaches a liquid container configured to contain a liquid to be ejected onto a medium by a liquid ejection apparatus, the liquid container comprising:
a first containing unit (fig. 2, item 3) configured to contain the liquid;
a second containing unit (fig. 2, item 4)
a coupling portion (fig. 2, item 1) configured to couple the first containing unit and the second containing unit to each other (see fig. 2),
wherein the first containing unit is provided with a first derivation unit (fig. 2, item 11) configured to derive the liquid contained in the first containing unit,
the second containing unit is provided with a second derivation unit (fig. 2, item 12) configured to derive the liquid contained in the second containing unit, and
the first containing unit and the second containing unit are individually sealed (see fig. 3) such that the liquid contained by the liquid container does not flow between the first containing unit and the second containing unit (see fig. 2. Note that “containing unit” could mean almost anything. Note also that, for purposes of future examination, while the “same liquid” limitation is met, it could be argued that even inks of different colors are the same liquid as they are all inks. Note also that the preamble does not provide any necessary structure to the body of the claim and has thus not been addressed).
Regarding claim 2, Crozet teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, wherein a derivation direction (fig. 2, vertical on page) of the liquid from the first derivation unit is same as a derivation direction of the liquid from the second derivation unit (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Crozet teaches the liquid container according to claim 2, wherein the first derivation unit and the second derivation unit are located at a same position in a direction along the derivation direction (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Crozet teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, wherein the coupling portion is a housing (fig. 2, item 1) configured to house the first containing unit and the second containing unit (see fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crozet in view of Kwon (2004/0159625).
Regarding claim 4, Crozet teaches the liquid container according to claim 1. Crozet does not teach wherein a derivation direction of the liquid from the first derivation unit is opposite to a derivation direction of the liquid from the second derivation unit. Kwon teaches this (Kwon, see fig. 5, Note two containers 1a, 1b separated by a partition and having two opposite derivation directions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to arrange the containers so as to have opposite derivation directions, as disclosed by Kwon, instead of the same derivation direction, as disclosed by Crozet, because doing so would amount to a simple rearrangement of the design of Crozet.
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crozet in view of Dowell.
Regarding claim 6, Crozet teaches the liquid container according to claim 1. Crozet does not teach wherein the liquid container contains the liquid to be injected into a liquid reservoir unit provided to the liquid ejection apparatus. Dowell teaches this (Dowell, see fig. 1B, Note liquid container 100 contains ink for ejection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the liquid container of Crozet as an ink container, as disclosed by Dowell, because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Crozet teaches the liquid container according to claim 1. Crozet does not teach wherein the liquid container is detachably attached to a loading unit of the liquid ejection apparatus. Dowell teaches this (Dowell, see fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the liquid container of Crozet as an ink container, as disclosed by Dowell, because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Crozet in view of Dowell teaches the liquid container according to claim 7, wherein the liquid container is configured to be loaded on the loading unit in a first posture in which the liquid is derived from the first derivation unit to the liquid ejection apparatus, and a second posture which is different from the first posture, and in which the liquid is derived from the second derivation unit to the liquid ejection apparatus (Crozet, see fig. 2, Note that container 1 can be rotated 180 degrees about a vertical axis and repositioned on the loading unit, and note that liquid is derived from both derivation units in both postures).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights