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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy 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.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Claim 2 states, “wherein the deformable part is configured with unit components linked with a pin”, while the specification (¶0084) states, “[t]he carrier part 902 is configured of multiple unit components 900 repeatedly linked and connected with pins”. Note that the specification describes the use of multiple pins while Claim 2 only claims the use of one. Correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the housing part of the printing apparatus which enables the printing apparatus to have a “replacement position” and a “retractable position”. Under the current claim language, the moving unit and storage unit are both defined as parts of the printing apparatus and therefore cannot be “inside” themselves. Therefore, the Claim 1 language “[the moving unit] which is configured to be movable between a replacement position, where the storage unit can be replaced, and a retracted position, where the storage unit is retracted inside the printing apparatus” is considered incomplete for omitting the essential element of the housing structure that would define an “inside” versus an “outside” of the printing apparatus.
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 Shihoh et al. (US6082851; herein referred to as “Shihoh”) in view of Murray et al. (US5686947A; herein referred to as “Murray”).
With respect to Claim 1, Shihoh teaches a printing apparatus (i.e., a “liquid ejection printing apparatus”; Shihoh: col 2, l 61-67) that performs printing by ejecting liquid to a print medium (Shihoh: col 2, l 61-67), the printing apparatus comprising:
a printing unit configured to eject the liquid (i.e., “printing head”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “205a”);
a storage unit configured to store the liquid (i.e., a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”);
a moving unit (i.e., the wheeled cart used for the “ink supply portion”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 2, element “100”) on which the storage unit is placed in a replaceable manner (i.e., a “second ink tank 4” with access to be replaced; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”; see annotated Shihoh Fig. 2 below),
a channel (i.e., a tube in the “ink tube group 206”, such as “first ink passage 6” or “third ink passage 7”; Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 63-67; col 6, l 12-19; Fig. 2, element “206; and Fig. 3, elements “6” and “7”) connected to the storage unit (i.e., a “second ink tank 4”)
An annotated Shihoh Fig. 2 is provided below to further illustrate features of the printing apparatus:
PNG
media_image1.png
631
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shihoh is silent on the following:
a moving unit which is configured to be movable between a replacement position, where the storage unit can be replaced, and a retracted position, where the storage unit is retracted inside the printing apparatus
a support unit configured to support a channel connected to the storage unit, and configured to be deformable in accordance with movement of the moving unit, wherein the support unit includes
a fixing part that extends in a movement direction of the moving unit and is fixed to the printing apparatus and
a deformable part of which one end is connected to the fixing part and the other end is fixed to the moving unit, the deformable part being configured to extend from one side to the other side of the movement direction and then curve at a predetermined curvature and fold from the other side to the one side, so as to extend in an overlapping manner with the fixing unit in a direction of gravity.
Murray teaches the following:
a moving unit which is configured to be movable between a replacement position, where the storage unit can be replaced, and a retracted position, where the storage unit is retracted inside the printing apparatus (Murray: Fig. 1, elements “11”-“12”).
As discussed above, the applicant has insufficiently defined the printing apparatus so as to define “inside” versus “outside” the apparatus. Murray teaches the general concept of housing elements of a printing apparatus within a physical external structure (such as their use of housing structures “11” and “12”; Fig. 1). Using this general concept of containing the elements of a printing apparatus in a physical external structure, would enable the printing apparatus to have an “inside” via which the moving unit could be moved in a “replacement” versus a “retracted” position. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this physical external structure could be the well-known structure of a room with a doorway. By modifying Shihoh with the concept of the usage of physical external structure taught by Murray, the printing apparatus can be considered to be in the “retracted” position when its claimed components (i.e., the printing unit, storage unit, moving unit, and support unit) are all contained with the room. When the moving unit is wheeled to extend beyond the doorway, it can be considered to be in the “replacement” position.
A support unit configured to support a channel (i.e., “plastic conduits 38”; Murray: col 5, l 32-49; Fig. 6, element “38”) connected to the storage unit (i.e., “high volume ink reservoir 36”; Murray: col 5, l 32-49 and Fig. 6) and configured to be deformable in accordance with movement of the moving unit, wherein the support unit includes
a fixing part that extends in a movement direction of the moving unit and is fixed to the printing apparatus (i.e., “fixed to the print carriage”, wherein the print carriage “22” is an element of the printing apparatus; Murray: col 5, l 32-49 and Fig. 6, element “22”); and
a deformable part (i.e., a “bendable conduit router 60” aka “Igus chain 60”; Murray: col 8, l 24-39; col 8, l 40-51; and Fig. 6, element “60”) of which one end is connected to the fixing part (i.e., “fixed to the print carriage”, wherein the print carriage “22” is an element of the printing apparatus; Murray: col 5, l 32-49 and Fig. 6, element “22”) and the other end is fixed to the moving unit (i.e., “one end of which is fixed to the support structure 20 near the reservoir containing end housing 12”; Murray: col 8, l 24-39; Fig. 2, elements “20”, and “12”; Fig. 6, elements “60”), the deformable part being configured to extend from one side to the other side of the movement direction and then curve at a predetermined curvature and fold from the other side to the one side, so as to extend in an overlapping manner with the fixing unit in a direction of gravity (Murray: col 8, l 40-51 and Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shihoh with the teachings of Murray in the following ways:
Modifying the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh by containing the taught components of the printing apparatus (i.e., the printing unit, storage unit, moving unit, and support unit) within a physical external structure, because this structure protects components vital to the functioning of the printer via its enclosure within the structure (Murray: col 4, l 49-57; Fig. 1, elements “11” and “12”).
Modifying the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh by incorporating a support unit (and its claimed components) to support the channel taught by Shihoh, including affixing the support unit on one end to the main structure of the printing apparatus and the other end to the moving unit which contains the storage unit. Murray teaches the benefit of using a flexible support unit for a channel (such as tubing) that will be moving, specifically a channel connecting a storage unit with the ejection components of a printer, stating: “therefore as the moveable print carriage is made to travel back and forth by a stepper motor and drive belt combination, the Igus chain 60 bends back and forth upon itself. Thus, the plastic tubing 38 threaded inside the chain 60 also bends back and forth upon itself within the chain, and therefore continues to smoothly feed ink from the stationary reservoirs 36 while the print carriage 22 moves back and forth along the support structure 20” (emphasis added; Murray: col 8, l 40-51; Fig. 6, elements “38” and “60”).
An annotated Shihoh Fig. 2 is provided below to further illustrate the “replacement” feature of the printing apparatus:
PNG
media_image2.png
686
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 2, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 for details), wherein the deformable part is configured with unit components linked with a pin (see annotated Murray Fig. 6; Murray: Fig. 6, element “60”).
PNG
media_image3.png
465
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 3, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 for details), wherein, in the storage unit (as discussed in Claim 1, a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”), a connection member that can be connected to the channel is located on one side of the movement direction (Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 51-55; see annotated zoomed-in portion of Shihoh Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
315
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 4, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 3 (see Claim 3 for details), wherein the connection member (as discussed in Claim 3, Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 51-55; see annotated zoomed-in portion of Shihoh Fig. 1 below) is located on a side where the support unit of the storage unit is located (see annotated zoomed-in portion of Shihoh Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
325
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 5, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 for details),
wherein the storage unit (as discussed in Claim 1, a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”) stores the liquid to be ejected to the print medium (i.e., “inks” provided to “the printing heads 205a”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55; Fig. 2, elements “205a”, “206”, and “100”; Fig. 3, elements “100”, “4”, “6”, and “205a”), and
wherein the liquid stored in the storage unit is supplied via the channel (i.e., a tube in the “ink tube group 206” aka “first ink passage 6”; Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 63-67; Fig. 2, element “206; and Fig. 3, element “6”) to the printing unit (i.e., “the printing heads 205a”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55; Fig. 2, elements “205a”, “206”, and “100”; Fig. 3, elements “100”, “4”, “6”, and “205a”).
With respect to Claim 6, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 for details),
wherein the storage unit stores waste liquid generated in a recovery operation performed for the printing unit (i.e., “waste ink tank 13”; Shihoh: col 6, l 23-26; Fig. 3, element “13”) and
wherein the waste liquid is transported to the storage unit via the channel (i.e., a tube in the “ink tube group 206” aka “third ink passage 7”; Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 6, l 12-19; Fig. 2, element “206”; and Fig. 3, elements “7” and “205a”).
With respect to Claim 7, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see Claim 1 for details),
wherein the storage unit includes a first storage unit configured to store a first liquid (as discussed in Claim 1, a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”; see annotated Shihoh Fig. 2 below) and
a second storage unit configured to store a second liquid (i.e., the second “ink reservoir 36” shown in Murray Fig. 2; Murray: col 5, l 64 – col 6, l 6; Fig. 2, elements “36”).
Murray teaches a printing apparatus which contains multiple storage units configured to store multiple liquids (Murray: col 5, l 64 – col 6, l 6; Fig. 2, elements “36”). This teaching by Murray modifies the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray (as discussed in Claim 1) by teaching that the storage unit containing a liquid can be duplicated to enable use of multiple storage units, each containing a liquid.
Moreover, as noted above, Shihoh discloses the claimed invention except for a “second” storage unit and a “second” liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to equip the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray with multiple support units for the multiple channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
and wherein, in the movement direction, the first storage unit and the second storage unit are arranged side by side in a direction intersecting with the movement direction of the moving unit (see annotated Shihoh Fig. 2 below and Murray: col 5, l 64 – col 6, l 6; Fig. 2, elements “36”).
PNG
media_image6.png
641
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 8, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 7 (see Claim 7 for details), wherein, between the first storage unit (as discussed in Claim 7, a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”) and the second storage unit (as discussed in Claim 7, a duplicate of a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”)), the support unit (i.e., “a support unit” as discussed in Claim 1) supports a first channel (i.e., a tube in the “ink tube group 206” aka “first ink passage 6”; Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 63-67; Fig. 2, element “206; and Fig. 3, element “6”) connected to the first storage unit (as discussed in Claim 7, a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”) and a second channel (i.e., a second tube in the “ink tube group 206” as taught by Shihoh; a duplicate of the “first ink passage 6” as taught by Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 63-67; “plastic conduits 38”; Murray: col 5, l 32-49; Fig. 6, element “38”) connected to the second storage unit (as discussed in Claim 7, a duplicate of a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”). As discussed in Claim 1, Murray teaches multiple channels (i.e., “plastic conduits 38”; Murray: col 5, l 32-49; Fig. 6, element “38”) all supported by a support unit between multiple storage units (i.e., a “bendable conduit router 60” aka “Igus chain 60”; Murray: col 8, l 24-39; col 8, l 40-51; Fig. 1, element “36” and “38”; and Fig. 6, element “60”). This teaching from Murray modifies the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray (i.e., as discussed in Claims 1 and 7 above, the printing apparatus includes a support unit configured to support a channel connect to a storage unit) by teaching that the support unit configured to support a channel connected to a storage unit can support multiple channels (i.e., both the “first” and “second” channels).
Claims 9-11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shihoh in view of Murray, and further in view of Yoshimoto & Kawakita (US20230182478A1; herein referred to as “Yoshimoto”).
With respect to Claim 9, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 7 (see Claim 7 for details), wherein the support unit includes
a first support unit (i.e., “a support unit” as discussed in Claim 1) configured to support a first channel (as discussed in Claim 7, a tube in the “ink tube group 206” aka “first ink passage 6”; Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 63-67; Fig. 2, element “206; and Fig. 3, element “6”) connected to the first storage unit (as discussed in Claim 7, a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”).
the second storage unit (as discussed in Claim 7, a duplicate of a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”)
Shihoh in view of Murray is silent on a second support unit including a second support unit configured to support a second channel connected to the second storage unit.
Yoshimoto teaches a second (i.e., the multiple separate paths of the tubes “82”; Yoshimoto: Fig. 1, element “82”; Fig. 10, element “82”) support unit (i.e., a duplicate of “a support unit” as discussed in Claim 1) configured to support a second channel (as discussed in Claim 7, a second tube in the “ink tube group 206” as taught by Shihoh; a duplicate of the “first ink passage 6” as taught by Shihoh: col 5, l 41-46; col 5, l 63-67; “plastic conduits 38”; Murray: col 5, l 32-49; Fig. 6, element “38”) connected to the second storage unit (as discussed in Claim 7, a duplicate of a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”)
Yoshimoto teaches a liquid supply device 2 containing a plurality of storage units (i.e., “server tank 6”; Yoshimoto: ¶0053; ¶0072; and Fig. 2, elements “2”,”6M”, and “6CS”), teaching that multiple storage units with independent channels can be separately connected to a printing apparatus (Yoshimoto: ¶0046-0047; Fig. 10, elements “82”, “17M”, and “17CS”). Therefore, Yoshimoto teaches that the two channels taught by Shihoh in view of Murray, can each be supported separately, one by a support unit taught by Shihoh in view of Murray and the other by a duplicate of that support unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to equip the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray with multiple support units for the multiple channels in the apparatus. Doing so would both properly protect each channel as well as organize the plurality of channels in the apparatus, given Yoshimoto teaches channels can be used for different types of liquids within the printing apparatus, such as ink (i.e., “magenta (M) ink”; Yoshimoto: ¶0046) and reaction liquid (i.e., “pretreatment agent”; Yoshimoto: ¶0046).
Moreover, as noted above, Shihoh in view of Murray discloses the claimed invention except for a “second” supporting unit and a “second” channel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to equip the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray with multiple support units for the multiple channels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
With respect to Claim 10, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 7 (see Claim 7 for details), wherein the printing unit includes
a first printing unit (i.e., “printing head”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “205a”) configured to eject the first liquid (as discussed in Claim 7, the liquid stored in a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”); and
a second liquid (as discussed in Claim 7, the liquid stored in the second “ink reservoir 36” shown in Murray Fig. 2; Murray: col 5, l 64 – col 6, l 6; Fig. 2, elements “36”),
wherein the first liquid is ink to be supplied to the first printing unit (i.e., ink transported to “printing head 205a”; Murray: col 5, l 41-46).
Shihoh in view of Murray is silent on wherein the printing unit includes
a second printing unit configured to eject the second liquid,
wherein the second liquid is reaction liquid that reacts with the ink and is supplied to the second printing unit.
Yoshimoto teaches wherein the printing unit includes
a second printing unit configured to eject the second liquid (i.e., “pretreatment agent” supplied from storage unit “6M” to “17M” to be ejected one or more printing units “heads 14”; Yoshimoto: ¶0046-0047; Fig. 10, elements “6CS”, “82”, and “17CS”),
wherein the second liquid is reaction liquid that reacts with the ink and is supplied to the second printing unit (i.e., “pretreatment agent” supplied to “17M” to be ejected one or more printing units “heads 14”; Yoshimoto: ¶0035; ¶0046-0047; Fig. 10, elements “6CS”, “82”, and “17CS”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to equip the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray with multiple printing units and correspondingly, multiple liquids (i.e., an ink and a reaction liquid) to be ejected via these printing units, because it would enable the printing apparatus to eject both an ink and a reaction liquid (Yoshimoto: ¶0046-0047; Fig. 10, elements “6M”, “6CS”, “82”, “17M”, and “17CS”). Yoshimoto teaches the benefit of a printing apparatus being equipped to eject both an ink and reaction liquid (i.e., a “pretreatment agent”), stating: “The pretreatment agent improves fixing of the ink to the print medium, or improves color development of the inks” (Yoshimoto: ¶0035).
With respect to Claim 11, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 7 (see discussion in Claim 7),
wherein the printing unit includes a first printing unit configured to eject ink (i.e., “printing head”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55; col 9, 54 – col 10, l 3; and Fig. 3, element “205a”) and
wherein the first liquid (as discussed in Claim 7, the liquid stored in a “second ink tank 4”; Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55 & Fig. 3, element “4”) includes waste ink generated in a recovery operation performed for the first printing unit (i.e., waste ink transported to, and subsequently stored in, the “waste ink tank 13”; Shihoh: col 9, 54 – col 10, l 3; Fig. 3, elements “13” and “205a”),
Shihoh in view of Murray is silent on wherein the printing unit includes
a second printing unit configured to eject reaction liquid that reacts with the ink
wherein the second liquid includes waste reaction liquid generated in a recovery operation performed for the second printing unit
Yoshimoto teaches wherein the printing unit includes
a second printing unit (printing units “heads 14”; Yoshimoto: ¶0046-0047; a duplicate of the “printing head” taught in Shihoh: col 5, l 51-55) configured to eject reaction liquid that reacts with the ink (i.e., “pretreatment agent” supplied to “17M” to be ejected one or more printing units “heads 14”; Yoshimoto: ¶0035; ¶0046-0047; Fig. 10, elements “6CS”, “82”, and “17CS”),
wherein the second liquid includes waste reaction liquid generated in a recovery operation performed for the second printing unit (i.e., waste ink transported to, and subsequently stored in, the “waste ink tank 13”; Shihoh: col 6, l 23-26; Fig. 3, element “13”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray with the teaching of Yoshimoto in the following way:
Equipping the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray with multiple printing units and correspondingly, multiple liquids (i.e., an ink and a reaction liquid) to be ejected via these printing units, because it would enable the printing apparatus to eject both an ink and a reaction liquid (Yoshimoto: ¶0046-0047; Fig. 10, elements “6M”, “6CS”, “82”, “17M”, and “17CS”). Yoshimoto teaches the benefit of a printing apparatus being equipped to eject both an ink and reaction liquid (i.e., a “pretreatment agent”), stating: “The pretreatment agent improves fixing of the ink to the print medium, or improves color development of the inks” (Yoshimoto: ¶0035).
Duplicating the waste recovery operation performed with the first printing unit to generate waste ink liquid (as taught by Shihoh in view of Murray) to generate waste reaction liquid. The removal of waste reaction liquid is equivalently beneficial as the removal of waste ink.
Moreover, as noted above, Shihoh in view of Murray discloses the claimed invention of a liquid generated in a recovery operation performed for a printing unit except for a “second” one specifically associated with reaction liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to equip the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray with this, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
With respect to Claim 13, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion of Claim 1).
Shihoh in view of Murray is silent on wherein the storage unit includes a grip part that can be gripped.
Yoshimoto teaches wherein the storage unit (i.e., a “server tank”; Yoshimoto: ¶0076; ¶0095; Fig. 3-5, element “6”) includes a grip part that can be gripped (i.e., a “handle”; Yoshimoto: ¶0076; ¶0095; Fig. 3-5, element “92”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the storage unit taught by Shihoh in view of Murray by adding a handle to the storage unit, because it provides better access to the storage unit when it needs to be refilled (Yoshimoto: ¶0099).
With respect to Claim 16, Shihoh in view of Murray in view of Yoshimoto teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 13, wherein the grip part is a handle part (Yoshimoto: ¶0076; ¶0095; Fig. 3-5, element “92”) installed upright on an upper surface of the storage unit (i.e., a “server tank”; Yoshimoto: ¶0076; ¶0095; Fig. 3-5, element “6”).
With respect to Claim 17, Shihoh in view of Murray in view of Yoshimoto teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 13, wherein the grip part is a handhold part (Yoshimoto: ¶0076; ¶0095; Fig. 3-5, element “92”) installed on an upper surface of the storage unit for hooking a hand (Yoshimoto: ¶0236) for carrying the storage unit (i.e., a “server tank”; Yoshimoto: ¶0076; ¶0095; Fig. 3-5, element “6”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shihoh in view of Murray, and further in view of Taga (US20070091140A1).
With respect to Claim 12, Shihoh in view of Murray teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion in Claim 1).
Shihoh in view of Murray is silent on wherein, in the replacement position, the storage unit does not overlap with an outer casing of the printing unit in the movement direction of the moving unit.
Taga teaches wherein, in the replacement position (i.e., “ink cartridge cover 7” in an open position within an outer casing “printer case 2”; Taga: ¶0051 and Fig. 2, elements “7” and “2”), the storage unit (i.e., an “ink cartridge”; Taga: ¶0055 and Fig. 2-3, element “17”) does not overlap with an outer casing (i.e., “printer case 2”; Taga: ¶0055 and Fig. 1-2, element “2”) of the printing unit in the movement direction of the moving unit. Taga teaches the ability of a printing apparatus to house containers of liquid within an outer casing and, when in a replacement position, these containers do not overlap with the outer casing. The printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray can be modified by Taga to include an outer casing with a replacement position wherein the storage unit, a container of liquid, is not overlapping with the outer casing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the printing apparatus taught by Shihoh in view of Murray (including the containment of the printing apparatus within a room with a doorway) by instead containing the printing apparatus in an outer casing which has a replacement position where the storage unit does not overlap with that outer casing, using the retractable housing cover taught by Taga (i.e., “ink cartridge cover”; Taga: ¶0047 and Fig. 1-2, elements “7” and “2”). This is beneficial because the outer casing taught by Taga allows all elements of the printing apparatus to be further protected when in the retracted position (Taga: Fig. 1, element “2”) but also enables access to the storage unit for attaching or detaching it from the printing apparatus, such as when refilling the storage unit, when in the replacement position (Taga: ¶0051; Fig. 2, elements “2”, “7”, and “17”).
Claims 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shihoh in view of Murray, further in view of Yoshimoto, and further in view of Kawate et al. (US20160176195A1; herein referred to as “Kawate”).
With respect to Claim 14, Shihoh in view of Murray in view of Yoshimoto teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 13 (see discussion in Claim 13).
Shihoh in view of Murray in view of Yoshimoto is silent on wherein the grip part is a notch part formed by notching a part of a side surface and lower surface of the storage unit.
Kawate teaches wherein the grip part is a notch part formed by notching a part of a side surface and lower surface of the storage unit (Kawate, Fig. 1; see annotated Kawate Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
484
349
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the grip part taught in Yoshimoto, which is beneficial because it provides better access to the storage unit when it needs to be refilled (Yoshimoto: ¶0099), could be modified by replacing its grip part with a common alternative grip part (i.e., the notch part taught in Kawate, Fig. 1; see annotated Kawate Fig. 1 above). Using the notch part taught in Kawate allows the printing apparatus to save space given the storage unit can be directly flush against another item laying on top of it in the Z direction (as shown in annotated Kawate Fig. 1 above), whereas the handle in Yoshimoto requires additional space in the Z direction to accommodate the handle.
With respect to Claim 15, Shihoh in view of Murray in view of Yoshimoto teaches the printing apparatus according to Claim 14 (see discussion in Claim 14), wherein, in the replacement position, the grip part (as discussed in Claim 14, the notch part taught in Kawate, Fig. 1; see annotated Kawate Fig. 1 above) does not overlap with the support unit (see discussion in Claim 1 regarding the various elements of the “support unit”) in the movement direction of the moving unit (Shihoh: Fig. 2, element “100”). Note that the orientation of the storage units with respect to the movement direction of the moving unit (i.e., the direction is equivalent to the direction of the “ink tube group 206” between the moving unit and the rest of the printing apparatus; Shihoh: Fig. 2, elements “100” and “206”) and that the grip part of the storage unit, which is on a side surface and lower surface of the storage unit, are not overlapping with the support unit (see annotated Shihoh Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
614
623
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 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 telephone number 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 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853