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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 18 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 21 June 2024, 22 November 2024, and 13 May 2026, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 21 June 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “racetrack shaped” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “racetrack shaped” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The instant specification at page 14, paragraph 0054 states “Still further, while the stirrer bar 1420 is racetrack-shaped, any number of any-shaped stirrer bars may instead be used, such as the multiple star-shaped stirrer bars 1510a, 1510b, as desired.” However, the examiner is not sure to what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention is since the written description fails to define “racetrack shaped”. In addition, the drawings fail to clearly illustrate “racetrack shaped” for element 1420. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the term “racetrack shaped”. For examination purposes, the examiner will construe “racetrack shaped” as any element having a closed loop.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi et al. (US 2012/0262523).
With respect to claim 1, Levi discloses a fluid container, comprising:
a main member (Fig. 2A, element 22);
upper (Fig. 2A, element 24) and lower plates (Fig. 2A, element 22, i.e. bottom portion) secured to upper and lower portions of the main member, respectively;
a central rod (Fig. 2B, element 34) extending through the upper plate (Fig. 2A, 2B, element 24);
a hollow stirrer bar (Fig. 2B, element 30; paragraph 0058) rotatably coupled to the central rod and disposed in a space between the upper and lower plates (paragraph 0057);
at least one first magnet disposed in the stirrer bar (paragraph 0059, claim 4);
an inlet tube (Fig. 2B, element 33) and an outlet tube (Fig. 2B, element 36) extending into the main member (paragraphs 0056, 0058); and
a holder (Fig. 1, element 14) disposed outside of the space between the upper and lower plates; and
at least one movable second magnet (Fig. 2B, element 32) magnetically linked with the at least one first magnet (paragraph 0062), wherein movement of the at least one second magnet causes rotation of the stirrer bar (paragraphs 0059, 0063).
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning how the magnets are magnetically linked are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Levi as applied above.
With respect to claim 2, Levi discloses the hollow stirrer bar (Fig. 2B, element 30) is racetrack shaped (Fig. 2B, element 33, i.e. plane shown).
With respect to claim 3, Levi discloses the stirrer bar (Fig. 2B, element 30) does not contact the upper plate (Fig. 2A, 2B, element 24) or the lower plate (Fig. 2B, element 22, i.e. bottom portion).
With respect to claim 4, Levi discloses the stirrer bar (Fig. 2B, element 30) is captured between a shoulder of the central rod and a boss (paragraph 0059, i.e. fastening means in order to magnetically operate and stir).
With respect to claim 5, Levi discloses the fluid container (Fig. 1, element 12) in combination with a housing (Fig. 1, element 18) in which the fluid container is disposed (paragraph 0047).
With respect to claim 6, Levi discloses the fluid container (Fig. 1, element 12) comprises a first ink reservoir (paragraph 0046) and further including a second ink reservoir (Fig. 1, i.e. array of element 12; paragraph 0046) identical to the first ink reservoir wherein the first ink reservoir and the second ink reservoir are coupled to an ink control (Fig. 3, element 64) and an inkjet printhead (Fig. 3, element 42).
With respect to claim 7, Levi discloses the first ink reservoir (claim 6 above) and the second ink reservoir (claim 6 above) are mounted in first and second slots (Fig. 1, array of element 16) of a mounting plate (Fig. 1, element 14) disposed in a housing (Fig. 1, element 18; paragraphs 0046-0047).
With respect to claim 8, Levi discloses the mounting plate (Fig. 1, element 14) includes further slots (paragraph 0048) adapted to receive further ink reservoirs (claim 6 above).
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 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 (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 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights