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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Examiner acknowledges claim 15 is cancelled.
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 5, 14, 19-20 and 22 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 claims 5, 20 and 22, it is unclear to Examiner how the first rib regulates movement of the second rib in a direction opposite to a gravity direction.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear to Examiner how the first rib regulates movement of a plurality of tanks.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear to Examiner how the first rib regulates movement of the 2nd tank in the opposite direction to a gravity direction.
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) 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi (US 2018/0178567).
With regard to claim 1, Takabayashi discloses a printing apparatus (10) [Fig. 1] comprising:
a plurality of tanks (30A-D) that are arrayed in a first direction [Fig. 16] and store a liquid [ink], wherein the plurality of tanks includes a first tank (30a) and a second tank (30c, 30d) that is not adjacent to the first tank in the first direction [Fig. 16],
wherein the first tank includes a first rib (76)
Takabayashi does not disclose the first rib is positioned to contact the second tank so as to regulate movement of the second tank.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a rib to contact the second tank since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
With regard to claim 2, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first tank is positioned at an end of the plurality of tanks in the first direction [Fig. 16].
With regard to claim 3, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first tank is not positioned at either end of the plurality of tanks in the first direction [any of the tanks can be the first tank; Fig. 16].
With regard to claim 4, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first tank includes a storage portion (30a) extending in the first direction [Fig. 16], and the first regulation portion rib is provided on the storage portion [Fig. 15].
With regard to claim 6, Takabayashi discloses further comprising a main body case, wherein the first tank is directly secured to the main body case [Fig. 16].
With regard to claim 7, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first tank is secured to the main body case with a screw [Para. 0103].
With regard to claim 8, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first tank is secured to the main body case by a snap-fit [Fig. 16].
With regard to claim 9. Takabayashi discloses further comprising a main body case,
wherein each of the plurality of tanks includes protrusion (30c) on a bottom surface [Para. 0103], and
wherein engagement of the protrusion with the main body case regulates movement of each of the plurality of tanks [fastens tanks; Para. 0103].
With regard to claim 10, Takabayashi discloses wherein the engagement of the protrusion with the main body case regulates movement of each of the plurality of tanks in a horizontal direction and a gravity direction [fastened to the lower frame; Para. 0103; Fig. 16].
With regard to claim 12, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first rib is detachable from the first tank [rib is a film material press bonded to the tank; Para. 0098].
With regard to claim 13, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first tank stores a black ink [Para. 0090].
With regard to claim 16, Takabayashi discloses wherein the first rib extends in the first direction [Fig. 15].
With regard to claim 17, Takabayashi discloses wherein the second tank includes a second rib [Fig. 16].
With regard to claim 18, Takabayashi does not disclose wherein the first rib is positioned to contact the second rib.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the first rib to contact the second tank since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takabayashi (US 208/0178567 ) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Jonouchi (US 2022/0258487).
With regard to claim 21, Takabayashi does not disclose wherein the second tank is not directly secured to the main body case.
Jonouchi teaches a second tank (112) not directly secured to the main body case [Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus of Takabayashi with a second ink tank not directly secured to the main body case as taught by Jonouchi for the purpose of accommodating a plurality of ink tanks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 11 is the inclusion of the limitations of wherein each of the plurality of tanks includes side protrusion, and engagement of the side protrusion with the main body case regulates movement of each of the plurality of tanks. It is these limitation(s) found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM EST.
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.
/TRACEY M MCMILLION/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/KRISTAL FEGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights