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 statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered 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.
Claims 2-4 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation "the adjacent welding projection portions" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation " the adjacent welding projection portions " in line 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and therefore is also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mizutani et al. (US 20220305798 A1) in view Esaka et al. (JP 2011131445 A).
The applied reference has a common applicant and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regard claim 1, Mizutani teaches a cartridge mounted on a printing apparatus (Figure 1 displays a “cartridge 4” mounted on a “printing apparatus 10” by a “cartridge mounting portion 6” described in paragraphs [0021]-[0022].) having a liquid introduction portion (Figure 6 displays the “cartridge 4” is coupled to the “liquid introduction portion 642” described in paragraph [0034].), the cartridge comprising:
a liquid accommodation portion that accommodates a liquid (Figure 6 displays the “liquid containing portion 450” of the “cartridge 4” described in paragraph [0034].);
a liquid supply portion configured to supply the liquid accommodated in the liquid accommodation portion to the printing apparatus by being coupled to the liquid introduction portion (Figure 6 displays a “liquid supply portion 442” which supplies the liquid to the “liquid introduction portion 642” described in paragraph [0034].);
an accommodation portion that accommodates a portion of the liquid supply portion therein (Figure 10 displays the “cartridge main body 41” that contains the “liquid supply portion 442” described in paragraphs [0060] and [0063].), and includes a wall portion having an opening into which the liquid introduction portion is inserted and coupled to the liquid supply portion (Figure 10 displays a “bottom wall 44” of the “cartridge main body 41” that has an “opening portion 446”, where the “liquid introduction portion 642” is inserted into, connecting the “opening portion 446” and the “liquid supply portion 442” described in paragraph [0063]),
a plurality of welding projection portions, which are a plurality of projection portions arranged along an outer edge of the opening in a state of being spaced apart (Figure 11 displays “first attachment portion 54” and “second attachment portion 55”, which are projections provided on the “adaptor bottom wall 84” that surrounds the “opening portion 446” and “supply portion positioning portion 448” respectively as described in paragraph [0077].); and
a sheet bonded to the plurality of welding projection portions configured to be peeled off, while covering the opening, the plurality of welding projection portions (Figure 12 displays a “film 200” that is peel-ably attached and covers the “opening portion 446” and “first attachment portion 54” by heat welding as described in paragraph [0077].), and
wherein the plurality of welding projection portions are projection portions before being heat-welded to the sheet formed at the wall portion (Figure 11 displays the “first attachment portion 54” as projections before the “film 200” displayed in Figure 12 is welded described in paragraph [0077].), and are portions not melted by heat welding among projection portions made of a material configured to be heat-welded (Paragraph [0077] describes how the “film 200” can be heat welded to the “first attachment portion 54” of the “bottom wall 84” and therefore the “first attachment portion 54” is a material that can heat welded without melting and maintain its shape.), and
the plurality of heat welding portions are portions formed by being melted by heat welding among the projection portions before being heat-welded to the sheet (The heat welding/ “formed by” limitation is a method of making and; therefore, is not given patentable weight in an apparatus claim.), and a portion of which are in contact with the sheet (Figure 12 displays how the shape of the “first attachment portion 54” shape is connected to the “film 200” described in paragraph [0078].).
Mizutani fails to teach a plurality of heat welding portions attached to a portion of a surface of the plurality of welding projection portions, and disposed in a state of being spaced apart
However, Esaka teaches a plurality of heat welding portions attached to a portion of a surface of the plurality of welding projection portions, and disposed in a state of being spaced apart (Figure 3 displays “melted portions 44” that are placed on the “welding surface 42” of the “welding protrusions 40 and 41” that are placed in predetermined distances from each other described in paragraph [0019]).
Mizutani and Esaka are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving welding objects together through using projections and heat. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge taught by Mizutani to also apply a plurality of heat welding portions attached to a portion of a surface of the plurality of welding projection portions, and disposed in a state of being spaced apart taught by Esaka. This would have been done for the purpose of improving welding strength (Esaka, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Mizutani teaches the cartridge according to claim 1, Mizutani further discloses the plurality of welding projection portions and the plurality of coupling portions constitute one continuous projection portion surrounding the opening (Figure 11 displays the “first attachment portion 54” as one continuous projecting portion that surrounds the “opening portion 446”.).
Mizutani fails to teach wherein the wall portion further has a plurality of coupling portions that couple the adjacent welding projection portions adjacent among the plurality of welding projection portions
However, Esaka teaches wherein the wall portion further has a plurality of coupling portions that couple the adjacent welding projection portions adjacent among the plurality of welding projection portions (Figure 4 displays how the “first member 32” includes several “integrally formed” “welding protrusions 40 and 41” that are welded to the “outer member 34” described in paragraph [0019].)
Mizutani and Esaka are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving welding objects together through using projections and heat. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cartridge taught by Mizutani to also apply wherein the wall portion further has a plurality of coupling portions that couple the adjacent welding projection portions adjacent among the plurality of welding projection portions taught by Esaka. This would have been done for the purpose of to have a strong welding between the two objects without reducing the surface quality (Esaka, paragraph [0008]).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
554
892
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
556
880
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
556
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
572
890
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art alone or in combination does not reasonably teach or suggests a cartridge where “at least a portion of the plurality of welding projection portions is disposed at a vertex of the polygon, and the plurality of coupling portions are continuously in contact with the sheet between the adjacent welding projection portions.”
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and therefore would be allowable if claim 3 is rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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.
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853