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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waring (U.S. patent 5,108,016).
In regards to claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 15 Waring discloses a fluid storage bottle comprising: a filling port (19) from which a fluid is filled; an injection port (IP) from which the filled fluid is injected into an external apparatus; a filling port placement surface (PS) in which the filling port (19) is provided; and an injection port placement surface (PS) which is adjacent to the filling port placement surface, which forms a fluid storage space together with the filling port placement surface, and in which the injection port (IP) is provided, wherein in a posture of the fluid storage bottle in injecting the fluid from the injection port into the external apparatus the injection port (IP) is located at a higher position than the filling port is, and wherein the fluid storage bottle further comprises function indicators located on an outer surface of the fluid storage bottle to indicate functions of the filling port and the injection port (i.e. tube 34 and cap 22), respectively; and wherein the ink storage bottle further comprises a spout pipe (38) connected to the injection port (IP), wherein an angle formed between an extending direction of the spout pipe (38) and a surface of the ink storage bottle opposed to the filling port placement surface is a value within a range of more than 0° to less than 90° (A), and wherein the spout pipe (38) is cylindrical; and wherein the filling port placement surface and the injection port placement surface are curved surfaces, such that a portion of the injection port placement surface other than a portion where the injection port is provided is curved. See amended Fig. 2.
The office notes that the inclusion of material worked upon (i.e. ink) by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114. Accordingly, recitation that the bottle is, “configured to replenish ink to an ink ejection apparatus, wherein the ink ejection apparatus includes (a) a printing head and (b) an ink tank for supplying the ink to the print head” as the prior art teaches all of the claimed structural limitations and is capable of providing the recited function.
PNG
media_image1.png
980
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, a distance between the injection port (IP) and the filling port (19) in a direction perpendicular to the filling port placement surface is larger than an opening width of the injection port (IP).
In regards to claim 3, a distance between the injection port (IP) and the filling port (19) in the direction perpendicular to the filling port placement surface is 1/20 or more to 1/5 or less of a distance between the filling port placement surface and a surface of the fluid bottle opposed to the filling port placement surface.
In regards to claim 4, a distance between the injection port (IP) and the filling port (FP) in a direction orthogonal to a direction perpendicular to the filling port placement surface (PS) is larger than an opening width of the injection port (IP).
In regards to claim 7, the injection port placement surface (PS) has a shape tapered toward the filling port (19).
In regards to claim 10, a lid (22) configured to be able to open and close the filling port (19).
In regards to claims 11 and 12, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114. The office further notes that a foreign substance in the fluid present in the fluid storage space is prevented from moving into the fluid tank through the injection port due to the nature of the domed top surface which facilitate collection of the foreign substances.
Claim(s) 1 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rheney (U.S. patent 1,641,051).
In regards to claims 1 and 13-17 Rheney discloses a fluid storage bottle comprising: a filling port (12) from which a fluid is filled; an injection port (15) from which the filled fluid is injected into an external apparatus; a filling port placement surface (6) in which the filling port (12) is provided; and an injection port placement surface (6) which is adjacent to the filling port placement surface (6), which forms a fluid storage space together with the filling port placement surface, and in which the injection port (15) is provided, wherein in a posture of the fluid storage bottle in injecting the fluid from the injection port into the external apparatus the injection port (15) is located at a higher position than the filling port is, and wherein a filter is provided to the filling port and the injection port (10, 14, respectively) the fluid storage bottle further comprises function indicators located on an outer surface of the fluid storage bottle to indicate functions of the filling port and the injection port (i.e. lid 13 and open end of spout 15), respectively;
The office notes that the inclusion of material worked upon (i.e. ink) by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP § 2115.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP §2114. Accordingly, recitation that the bottle is, “configured to replenish ink to an ink ejection apparatus, wherein the ink ejection apparatus includes (a) a printing head and (b) an ink tank for supplying the ink to the print head” as the prior art teaches all of the claimed structural limitations and is capable of providing the recited function.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waring.
Waring discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Waring does not explicitly disclose that the angle formed between the extending direction of the spout pipe and the surface of the liquid storage container opposed to the filling port placement surface is a value within a range of 70 degrees or more to less than 90 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the angle to be as recited by applicant as a matter of design choice so as to best suit the needs of the user.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corner et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/0151809), hereinafter “Corner” in view of Rheney.
Corner discloses an ink ejection apparatus, wherein the ink ejection apparatus includes (a) a printing head (34) and (b) an ink tank (24) for supplying the ink to the print head; and an ink storage bottle (40).
Corner does not disclose the ink storage bottle according to claims 1, 13 or 14.
However, Rheney teaches a fluid storage bottle which does disclose the elements of claims 1, 13 and 14 as discussed above.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP §2143. Accordingly, applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. Absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim in unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
It is the office's position that applicants have not submitted persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. In the instant case, the teaching in Rheney of dispensing fluid from a container with a filling port and injection port as necessitated by applicant would have suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a fluid dispenser as taught by Rheney with a print system, because such an arrangement is simply the use of a known dispenser for its established function to achieve predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
As discussed above, Waring and Reheny disclose applicant’s invention as now claimed.
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 R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753