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 .
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 4 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 Examiner is unclear as to what the Applicant intends to claim with regards to the limitation “a width in the scanning direction is 25 mm or smaller”. It is unclear as to what element the limitation intends to be a measurement of. Thus, the Examiner will use the broadest and most reasonable interpretation of the claim to examine. However, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to better clarify the Applicant’s intending meaning.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitawaki et al. (EP 4 039 479 A1) (hereinafter Kitawaki et al.) in view of Ishimatsu et al. (EP 3 421 246 A1) (hereinafter Ishimatsu et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitawaki et al. teaches a cartridge (1, Fig. 1) configured to eject a liquid while moving in a scanning direction in a state of being mounted on a liquid ejection apparatus (2, Fig. 7) [Paragraphs 0018 and 0039], comprising: a storage unit (13, Fig. 2) configured to store the liquid [Paragraphs 0018 and 0031]; an element substrate (16, Fig. 2) including an ejection port (161, Fig. 5) configured to eject the liquid stored in the storage unit (13) and an element (162, Fig. 5) configured to generate energy used to eject the liquid [Paragraphs 0018 and 0034-0036]; and an electric wiring member (15, Fig. 5) electrically connected with the element substrate (16) [Paragraphs 0018 and 0033].
Kitawaki et al. fails to teach wherein a center of the element substrate in the scanning direction is offset from a center of the electric wiring member in the scanning direction.
Ishimatsu et al. teaches wherein a center of the element substrate in the scanning direction is offset from a center of the electric wiring member in the scanning direction [Paragraph 0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a center of the element substrate in the scanning direction is offset from a center of the electric wiring member in the scanning direction as taught by Kitawaki et al. as modified by Ishimatsu et al. for the purposes of reducing the influence of heat from circuitry [Ishimatsu et al., Paragraph 0031].
Regarding Claim 3, Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge (1) [Paragraphs 0018, 0031, 0033-0036].
Kitawaki et al. further teaches a cartridge, wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, includes a front wall portion [Paragraphs 0020-0021, see Fig. 1].
Kitawaki et al. fails to teach wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, a height of the front wall portion has a size 2.4 to 2.8 times greater than a width of the front wall portion.
Ishimatsu et al. fails to teach wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, a height of the front wall portion has a size 2.4 to 2.8 times greater than a width of the front wall portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, a height of the front wall portion has a size 2.4 to 2.8 times greater than a width of the front wall portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to combine the teachings of Kitawaki et al. as modified Ishimatsu et al. and the holdings of In re Aller is for the purposes of forming a case for the cartridge [Kitawaki et al., Paragraphs 0020-0021].
Regarding Claim 4, Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge (1) [Paragraphs 0018, 0031, 0033-0036].
Kitawaki et al. further teaches a cartridge, wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, a width in the scanning direction is 25 mm or smaller.
Kitawaki et al. fails to teach wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, a width in the scanning direction is 25 mm or smaller.
Ishimatsu et al. fails to teach wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, a width in the scanning direction is 25 mm or smaller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein in the orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, a width in the scanning direction is 25 mm or smaller, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 216 (CCPA 1980). The motivation to combine the teachings of Kitawaki et al. as modified Ishimatsu et al. and the holdings of In re Boesch is for the purposes of forming a case for the cartridge [Kitawaki et al., Paragraphs 0020-0021].
Regarding Claim 5, Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge (1) [Paragraphs 0018, 0031, 0033-0036].
Kitawaki et al. fails to teach wherein in the scanning direction, a length from the center of the element substrate to the center of the electric wiring member is within a range of 6.4% or greater and 7.2% or smaller of a length of the electric wiring member.
Ishimatsu et al. teaches wherein in a scanning direction, an element substrate and an electric wiring member having a center [Paragraph 0031, Fig. 9].
Ishimatsu et al. fails to teach wherein in the scanning direction, a length from the center of the element substrate to the center of the electric wiring member is within a range of 6.4% or greater and 7.2% or smaller of a length of the electric wiring member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein in the scanning direction, a length from the center of the element substrate to the center of the electric wiring member is within a range of 6.4% or greater and 7.2% or smaller of a length of the electric wiring member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation to combine the teachings of Kitawaki et al. as modified by Ishimatsu et al. and the holdings of In re Aller is for the purposes of reducing the influence of heat from circuitry [Ishimatsu et al., Paragraph 0031].
Regarding Claim 6, Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge (1), [Paragraphs 0018, 0031, 0033-0036].
Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge, having a storage unit [Paragraph 0031].
Kitawaki et al. fails to explicitly teach the cartridge, further comprising: a supply port configured to supply the liquid to the storage unit.
Ishimatsu et al. al teaches the cartridge, further comprising: a supply port configured to supply the liquid to the storage unit [Paragraph 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a supply port configured to supply the liquid to the storage unit as taught by Kitawaki et al. as modified by Ishimatsu et al. for the purposes of providing ink supply to the storage unit [Ishimatsu et al., Paragraph 0017].
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) 2, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitawaki et al. (EP 4 039 479 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge (1), further comprising: a housing (see Fig, 2) including the storage unit (13), wherein in orientation that allows for the movement in the scanning direction, the element substrate (16) is arranged on a bottom portion (see Fig. 7) of the housing (see Fig. 2) and which is positioned in a lower portion of the storage unit (13) in a vertical direction, and the electric wiring member (15) has flexibility and is provided along a front wall portion (see Fig. 1) to the bottom portion of the housing (see Fig. 2) [Paragraphs 0018-0019, 0039, 0041].
Regarding Claim 7, Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge (1), wherein the cartridge is configured to be attachable to and detachable from a carriage (211, Fig. 7) included in the liquid ejection apparatus (see Fig. 7) and movable in the scanning direction [Paragraphs 0039-0043].
Regarding Claim 8, Kitawaki et al. teaches the cartridge (1), wherein the electric wiring member (15) receives a predetermined electric signal transmitted from the liquid ejection apparatus (2, Fig. 7) in a state of being electrically connected with a predetermined surface of the carriage (211) [Paragraphs 0039-0050].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of claims 9-15 is the inclusion of the limitation a cartridge set that includes in a scanning direction, center to center distance between a first and second element substrate of a first and second cartridge, respectively, is shorter than the center to center distance between a first and second electric wiring member of the first and second cartridge of the cartridge set. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 16-19 is the inclusion of the limitation a liquid ejection apparatus that includes in a scanning direction, center to center distance between a first and second element substrate of a first and second cartridge, respectively, is shorter than the center-to-center distance between a first and second electric wiring member of the first and second cartridge of a cartridge set. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination, that has not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)272-1701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am -6pm, 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/LISA SOLOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853