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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a holding unit configured to” in claim 1,
“a first restriction unit configured to” in claim 1,
“a connector configured to” in claim 1,
“a second restriction unit configured to” in claim 1,
“a detection unit configured to” in claim 3,
“a stirring unit configured to” in claim 8,
“a holding unit configured to” in claim 10,
“a connector configured to” in claim 10,
“a restriction unit configured to” in claim 10,
“a detection unit configured to” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazawa, US 20190291444 A1.
Regarding claim 10,
A liquid ejection apparatus (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0001, "The present invention relates to a liquid ejecting apparatus such as an ink jet printer"),
a holding unit configured to hold a tray on which a container configured to contain liquid to be supplied to an ejection head is detachably mounted (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0023, "The tray 13 is a container that can be attached/detached to/from the mounting portion 14 in a state where the ink pack 20 is mounted"),
a connector configured to be in contact with a substrate of the container (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0035, "In a state where the locking portion 50 locks the liquid container 21, the substrate connection portion 56 is electrically connected to the circuit substrate 64 of the liquid container 21"),
a restriction unit configured to, in a case where the substrate and the connector are in contact with each other, restrict pulling the tray out of the holding unit (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0058, "Also, the mounting portion 14 includes a locking portion 50 configured to lock the liquid container 21").
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa, US 20190291444 A1, and Yoshida et al., US 20160332455 A1.
Regarding claim 1,
Miyazawa teaches:
A liquid ejection apparatus (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0001, "The present invention relates to a liquid ejecting apparatus such as an ink jet printer"),
a holding unit configured to hold a tray on which a container configured to contain liquid to be supplied to an ejection head is detachably mounted (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0023, "The tray 13 is a container that can be attached/detached to/from the mounting portion 14 in a state where the ink pack 20 is mounted"),
a first restriction unit configured to be movable to a restriction position where the first restriction unit restricts pulling the tray out of the holding unit and to a non-restriction position where the first restriction unit does not restrict pulling the tray out of the holding unit (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0058, "Also, the mounting portion 14 includes a locking portion 50 configured to lock the liquid container 21"),
a connector configured to be in contact with a substrate of the container (Miyazawa, Paragraph 0035, "In a state where the locking portion 50 locks the liquid container 21, the substrate connection portion 56 is electrically connected to the circuit substrate 64 of the liquid container 21"),
Miyazawa does not disclose a second restriction unit configured to, in a case where the substrate is in contact with the connector and the first restriction unit is at the restriction position, restrict movement of the first restriction unit to the non-restriction position.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches a solenoid lock which functions as a second restriction unit which prevents the operation of a lever, functioning as the first restriction unit, which allows the user to insert and remove an ink cartridge (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0083, "Therefore, as shown in FIG. 10(a), a solenoid lock 902 is provided near the lower end portion of the operation lever 504 as the lock mechanism to prevent the operation lever 504 from moving from a predetermined position, for example, a position where the operation lever 504 is fixed by the lever positioning plate 505").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to include a second restriction unit as taught by Yoshida et al. so as to prevent erroneous loading of the ink cartridge (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0093, “Thus, it is possible to prevent erroneous loading due to a misunderstanding of the ink cartridge and the solvent cartridge”).
Regarding claim 2,
Miyazawa does not disclose that in a case where the substrate and the connector are out of contact with each other, the second restriction unit is configured not to restrict the movement of the first restriction unit to the non-restriction position.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches that the solenoid lock, being the second restriction unit, is disengaged when the ink cartridge is to be dismounted, allowing the lever, being the first restriction unit, to be operated (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0085, “The unlocked state means a state in which the operation lever 504 is movable from the predetermined position”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to have that in a case where the substrate and the connector are out of contact with each other, the second restriction unit is configured not to restrict the movement of the first restriction unit to the non-restriction position, as taught by Yoshida et al., so as to replacement of the cartridge (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0092, “The unlocking of the operation lever 504 is necessary, for example, mainly when the main body 1 is installed, when a cartridge of the ink or the solvent is replaced, when a use period of the ink or the solvent expires, when the ink is deteriorated, and when an ink type is changed”).
Regarding claim 3,
Miyazawa does not disclose a detection unit configured to detect whether the first restriction unit is at the restriction position or the non-restriction position.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches that the operation lever may operate automatically (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0071, "Alternatively, the operation lever 504 may be controlled to automatically operate"). In order for the lever to be controlled to operate automatically, the position of the lever must be known by the controller, thus implying a detection unit which detects whether the lever, being the restriction unit, is at the restriction position or non-restriction position.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to include a detection unit configured to detect whether the first restriction unit is at the restriction position or non-restriction position so as to allow the restriction unit to be controlled to automatically operate, as taught by Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 4,
Miyazawa does not disclose that the second restriction unit is configured to be driven by a solenoid.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches a solenoid lock which functions as a second restriction unit which prevents the operation of a lever, functioning as the first restriction unit, which allows the user to insert and remove an ink cartridge (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0083, "Therefore, as shown in FIG. 10(a), a solenoid lock 902 is provided near the lower end portion of the operation lever 504 as the lock mechanism to prevent the operation lever 504 from moving from a predetermined position, for example, a position where the operation lever 504 is fixed by the lever positioning plate 505").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to include a second restriction unit as taught by Yoshida et al. so as to prevent erroneous loading of the ink cartridge (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0093, “Thus, it is possible to prevent erroneous loading due to a misunderstanding of the ink cartridge and the solvent cartridge”).
Regarding claim 5,
Miyazawa does not disclose that the first restriction unit is configured to be operated by a user.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches that the lever, being the first restriction unit, may be manually operated by a user (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0071, "Note that the user may be able to manually perform the operation of the operation lever 504 explained above").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to allow the user to operate the first restriction unit so as to allow the user to change the position of the restriction unit, as taught by Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 7,
Miyazawa does not disclose a display unit configured to display a notification to a user.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches a display section which displays an operation screen (Yoshida et al., Claim 7, "a display section for displaying an operation screen for releasing a lever locked state in the lever lock section").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to include a display screen which displays notifications to the user, as taught by Yoshida et al., so as to allow the user to input information, such as an unlock code (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0096, “…a dedicated screen for making it possible to operate the lock pin 907 with a password issued to a maintenance person and unlock the operation lever 504 with button operation”).
Regarding claim 9,
Miyazawa does not disclose that in a case where an amount of the liquid contained in the container is less than a predetermined amount, the second restriction unit is configured to lift restriction of the movement of the first restriction unit.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches that when the liquid-level detection sensor no longer detects contact with liquid, the control section unlocks the solenoid lock, the solenoid lock being the second restriction unit (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0089, "On the other hand, in the case of a state in which the contact with the liquid is not detected by the liquid-level detection sensor 904, this is considered to indicate a replacement time of the replenishing liquid bottle 600. Therefore, the control section determines on the basis of detection information of the liquid-level detection sensor 904 that the energization to the solenoid is possible").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to have it so that in a case where an amount of the liquid contained in the container is less than a predetermined amount, the second restriction unit is configured to lift restriction of the movement of the first restriction unit, as taught in Yoshida et al., so as to allow the user to replace the ink cartridge when the amount of ink in the cartridge is below a certain level (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0092, “The unlocking of the operation lever 504 is necessary, for example, mainly when the main body 1 is installed, when a cartridge of the ink or the solvent is replaced, when a use period of the ink or the solvent expires, when the ink is deteriorated, and when an ink type is changed”).
Regarding claim 11,
Miyazawa does not disclose a detection unit configured to detect whether the restriction unit is at a restriction position where the restriction unit restricts pulling the tray out of the holding unit or at a non-restriction position where the restriction unit does not restrict pulling the tray out of the holding unit.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches that the operation lever may operate automatically (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0071, "Alternatively, the operation lever 504 may be controlled to automatically operate"). In order for the lever to be controlled to operate automatically, the position of the lever must be known by the controller, thus implying a detection unit which detects whether the lever, being the restriction unit, is at the restriction position or non-restriction position.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to include a detection unit configured to detect whether the first restriction unit is at the restriction position or non-restriction position so as to allow the restriction unit to be controlled to automatically operate, as taught by Yoshida et al.
Regarding claim 12,
The liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the restriction unit is configured to be driven by a solenoid.
However, Yoshida et al. teaches a solenoid lock which functions as a second restriction unit which prevents the operation of a lever, functioning as the first restriction unit, which allows the user to insert and remove an ink cartridge (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0083, "Therefore, as shown in FIG. 10(a), a solenoid lock 902 is provided near the lower end portion of the operation lever 504 as the lock mechanism to prevent the operation lever 504 from moving from a predetermined position, for example, a position where the operation lever 504 is fixed by the lever positioning plate 505").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to include a second restriction unit as taught by Yoshida et al. so as to prevent erroneous loading of the ink cartridge (Yoshida et al., Paragraph 0093, “Thus, it is possible to prevent erroneous loading due to a misunderstanding of the ink cartridge and the solvent cartridge”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa and Yoshida et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hirano et al., US 20160279953 A1.
Regarding claim 6,
Miyazawa does not disclose that in a case where the substrate and the connector are in contact with each other with the first restriction unit at the non-restriction position, a notification prompting a user to move the first restriction unit to the restriction position is made.
However, Hirano et al. teaches that when a certain detection signal is given by the cartridge indicating that the cartridge is not mounted correctly, a message may be displayed on a display unit giving instruction to the user, prompting them to mount the cartridge correctly (Hirano et al., Paragraph 0131, "If the detection signal is a low level signal (S31: NO), in S38 the control unit 130 outputs a command to notify the user that the ink cartridge 30 is not mounted in the cartridge-receiving section 110 and subsequently ends the process of FIG. 8. There are no particular restrictions on a specific method of notification in this case, but the control unit 130 may control the display unit 109 to display a message thereon or may output an instructional voice message from a speaker (not shown) provided in the printer 10, for example").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to have that in a case where the substrate and the connector are in contact with each other with the first restriction unit at the non-restriction position, a notification prompting a user to move the first restriction unit to the restriction position is made, as taught by Hirano et al., so that the user may know to mount the cartridge correctly.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazawa and Yoshida et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koizumi et al., US 20160288514 A1.
Regarding claim 8,
Miyazawa does not disclose a stirring unit configured to perform stirring in the container with the movement of the first restriction unit restricted by the second restriction unit.
However, Koizumi et al., teaches a configuration that uses pressurized fluid to stir a liquid in a liquid container (Koizumi et al., Paragraph 0017, "This configuration uses the pressurized fluid to supply the liquid contained in the liquid container to the liquid ejection apparatus and stir the liquid contained in the liquid container").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyazawa to include a stirring unit configured to perform stirring in the container with the movement of the first restriction unit restricted by the second restriction unit, as taught by Koizumi et al., so as to fluidize the pigment particles, reducing the variation in the distribution of the pigment particles (Koizumi et al., Paragraph 0086, “This fluidizes the pigment particles accumulated in a -Z-axis direction part in the liquid container 412. Fluidization of the pigment particles reduces a variation in concentration distribution of the pigment particles in the ink contained in the liquid container 412”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI ALSHOROOGI whose telephone number is (571)272-8946. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/RAMI A ALSHOROOGI/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853