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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the and wherein the edge of the liquid ejection head opposite a surface thereof having the ejection element substrate thereon is in contact with the second cushioning portion, claim 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Because of the protective members, no edge of liquid ejection head is in contact with the second cushioning portion defined by claim 8 which is understood to be at the short side opposite the first cushioning portion. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 1-20 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 1-20, liquid ejection head package that secures a liquid ejection head,” it is not clear if applicant intends to positively claim the liquid ejection head because of the word “secures” rather than “for securing” yet the liquid ejection head is not recited positively in the body of the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the liquid ejection head is not interpreted as being positively claimed in claims 1-9, 11, or 17-20; the limitations with respect to the liquid ejection head are interpreted as an intended use of the packaging. On the other hand, because the body of claims 10, 12-16 positively recite the liquid ejection head and parts, they are interpreted as being positively claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the corrugated cardboard inside the first cushioning portion" and “the corrugated cardboard outside the first cushioning portion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The corrugated cardboard forms the cushioning portion, what is the cardboard outside and inside the cushioning portion? If the corrugated cardboard forms the cushioning portion, it cannot be inside or outside the space, it is the cushioning portion.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein a varying portion configured to vary the width of the corrugated cardboard” is indefinite. There is a tapered portion but there is no disclosure of variable width. In other words, the widths for each section are fixed, not variable. The tapered portion narrows to a portion of the folded cardboard that fits inside the space created by folding the cardboard. The varying portion is interpreted as a tapered section.
Regarding claim 8, it is not clear what the direction of claim 8 is tied to, the second space and second cushion are three dimensional and extend in 3 directions. For the purposes of examination, the second cushion is interpreted as being along the long side of the packaging, not the edge/width side.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is unclear since the first spaces are at the ends and appear to be smaller spaces with smaller lengths than the large second spaces along the length of the packaging. A shorter side is interpreted as being a width side or an end side of the box. With this in mind, it is interpreted that the “first space” and “second space” in claim 9 are accidentally switched for the purposes of examination.
Regarding claim 17, it is not clear which of the protrusions introduced in claim 17 the protective member is claimed as protecting. For the purposes of examination, the liquid ejection head of claim 1 and 17 is not positively claimed, only claimed in regard to function. With this in mind, a protective member capable of protecting a protrusion at the end of a device reads on claim 17.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami (JP 2000199995-A).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami discloses a package fully capable of holding liquid ejection head (liquid ejection heads are sometimes elongated like the toner supply container disclosed by Murakami) the package comprising:
a protective member 2, fig. 26, capable of protecting a protrusion (reference 301a) at an end of a liquid ejection head in a longitudinal direction; and
a box member at 3 in fig. 30, capable of packaging a liquid ejection head having the protective member attached to the end thereof in the longitudinal direction,
wherein the box member includes additional packages at 4, fig. 26, that act as a cushioning member since there are spaces in the additional packages and the additional packages are a position where they contacts the protective member of an adjacent package.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, second spaces and cushioning portions are formed between the cartridge of an adjacent package and the walls at 4 along the longitudinal side of the individual packages, fig. 30, thereby satisfying the limitations of claim 8: and 9: The liquid ejection head package according to claim 1, wherein the cushioning member further includes a second cushioning portion having a second space therein between a side surface of the box member and an edge of the liquid ejection head in a direction along a shorter side of the liquid ejection head.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Maurakami discloses protective members at both ends capable of protecting protrusions at opposing ends of a liquid ejection head, fig. 27 and 30, each having a through hole at 2a. The protective members of Maurakami house a protrusion and have contoured surface for contacting other areas of the ends of the cartridge at 301 and are fully capable of allowing a liquid ejection head protrusion to be inserted and a contact surface with which a surface of the liquid ejection head having the protrusion thereon comes into contact; and wherein the surface of the liquid ejection head having the protrusion thereon contacts the contact surface, and wherein the protrusion is accommodated in the through hole.
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.
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) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami (US 8805250) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 8662303).
Regarding claim 1, Takami discloses a liquid ejection head package (developer cartridge 1, hereinafter cartridge) that secures a cartridge configured to eject liquid, the cartridge package comprising:
a protective member 53 configured to protect an end of the liquid ejection head in a longitudinal direction; and
a box member 51 configured to pack the liquid ejection head having the protective member attached to the end thereof in the longitudinal direction.
Takami does not disclose that the box member includes a cushioning member.
Yoshida teaches a package 1 having a packaging box 2 with a cushioning member 3 having a first space therein
wherein the box member includes a cushioning member
the cushioning member including a first cushioning portion having a first space within cushioning material structural portion, 38, fig. 1, for absorbing shock and protecting a packaged object 100, col. 4: 1-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the box member of Takami to be packaging having a box and a cushioning member as taught by Yoshida in order to provide shock absorbing properties to the packaging to protect the cartridge.
The cushioning member of Takami as modified by Yoshida contacts the protective member the outer ends of the protective members.
Regarding claim 2, Takami discloses the box member is made of corrugated cardboard, col 7:55-60.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the first cushioning portion of Tamaki as modified above is made of corrugated cardboard (col. 4: 25-30) and the first space in the first cushioning portion is formed by folding the corrugated cardboard at least twice, fig. 22 of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 6, Tamaki as modified above teaches claim 6: as seen in fig. 26 of Yoshida, in a direction along a shorter side of the box member, a width of the corrugated cardboard inside the first cushioning portion is smaller than a width of the corrugated cardboard outside the first cushioning portion by the thickness of the corrugated cardboard.
Regarding claim 8, Tamaki as modified above teaches claim 6: the cushioning member of Tamaki modified by Yoshida further includes a second cushioning portion 39 having a second space therein between a side surface of the box member and an edge of the liquid ejection head in a direction along a shorter side of the liquid ejection head, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 9, Tamaki discloses that a length of the first space in a longitudinal direction of the box member is greater than a length of the second space in a direction along a shorter side of the box member, fig. 6.
Regarding claim 10, Tamaki further discloses that the liquid ejection head is packed in the box member with an ejection element substrate of the liquid ejection head facing a bottom surface of the box member, fig. 6. However, if the box is rotated 90 degrees, the bottom member becomes a side surface such that Tamaki discloses that the liquid ejection head is packed in the box member with an ejection element substrate of the liquid ejection head facing a side surface of the box member, and wherein the edge of the liquid ejection head opposite a surface thereof having the ejection element substrate thereon is in contact with the second cushioning portion.
Regarding claim 12, Tamaki discloses a cover member (18 first blade pressing member), fig. 2 and 3, configured to cover an ejection element substrate of the liquid ejection head, wherein the cover member is attached to the liquid ejection head, col. 2: 10-13.
Regarding claim 13, Tamaki further discloses protective members 53 configured to protect both ends of the liquid ejection head in the longitudinal direction, wherein the cover member is secured to the liquid ejection head by sandwiching the cover member between the protective members, fig. 6.
Regarding claim 17, Takami disclose the liquid ejection head has a protrusion at each end thereof, at 33 and 35, fig. 2, in the longitudinal direction, as seen in fig. 6, the protective member is configured to protect the protrusion since it has a molded contour that fits the ends of the cartridge.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US 10434788) in view of Okura (JP-2017102371-A)
Regarding claim 1, 2, 4, 5, Tamaki discloses a liquid ejection head package 5 (plate-shaped members) that secures a liquid ejection head comprising a protective member at 51A configured to protect a spout 3 of the liquid ejection head in a longitudinal direction, fig. 1.
Tamaki does not disclose a box for transporting the liquid ejection head package.
Okura teaches a liquid ejection head package at 1, fig. 5, with a cartridge, (toner cartridge 9) in a cushioning member 2 made from corrugated cardboard that protects opposing ends of the cartridge by providing a space 83 and 84 at each end formed by folding the cardboard at least twice, fig. 5, fold lines seen in fig. 7 for mitigating an impact transmitted to the packaged product, see page 3 middle of the page: “The box part 2 and the buffer part of the packing container 1 are crushed according to the external force received by the packing container 1 due to dropping or the like, thereby reducing the impact transmitted to the waste toner unit 9.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the liquid ejection head package of Tamaki within a box with cushioning as taught by Okura in order to reduce the impact due to dropping the liquid head package of Tamaki while being transported or shipped.
Regarding claims 17, 18, Tamaki discloses the protective member is formed with a through hole at 3, fig. 1, the through hole is not numbered itself, into which a protrusion (spout 3) can be inserted and is protected and a contact surface (formed when fold line 58 is folded, fig. 2) with which a surface of the liquid ejection head (a shoulder of the liquid ejection head at the end with the spout) having the protrusion thereon comes into contact; and wherein the surface of the liquid ejection head having the protrusion thereon contacts the contact surface, and wherein the protrusion is accommodated in the through hole, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 20, Tamaki discloses that the liquid ejection head and the protective member are packed in a bag member 9, fig. 1 and as modified above by Okura, is stored in the box member, such that the protective member contacts the first cushioning portion with the bag member therebetween, col. 2: 30-40.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami and Yoshida OR Tamaki and Okura as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, the references applied above teach all of claim 2, as applied above. The references applied above do not disclose the direction of the flutes. However, it is known in the art that the corrugated box will have more impact resistance in a direction perpendicular to the flutes. For example, corrugated flutes are often oriented such that the flutes in the sidewalls are in an up-down direction to increase stacking strength.
With this in mind, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try one of two configurations for orienting the flutes of the corrugated paper of Takami as modified above or Tamaki as modified above: either where the flutes are in a longitudinal direction or where the flutes are in a width direction depending on which direction would best protect the contents of the packaging, for example in the longitudinal direction if the most sensitive part of the object being protected is at the ends of the package as known in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4- 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki in view of Okura (JP-2017102371-A) and Vander (US 2755982).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 4-7, Tamaki discloses a liquid ejection head package 5 (plate-shaped members) that secures a liquid ejection head comprising a protective member at 51A configured to protect a spout 3 of the liquid ejection head in a longitudinal direction, fig. 1.
Tamaki does not disclose a box for transporting the liquid ejection head package.
Okura teaches a liquid ejection head package at 1, fig. 5, with a cartridge, (toner cartridge 9) in a cushioning member 2 made from corrugated cardboard that protects opposing ends of the cartridge by providing a space 83 and 84 at each end formed by folding the cardboard at least twice, fig. 5, fold lines seen in fig. 7 for mitigating an impact transmitted to the packaged product, see page 3 middle of the page: “The box part 2 and the buffer part of the packing container 1 are crushed according to the external force received by the packing container 1 due to dropping or the like, thereby reducing the impact transmitted to the waste toner unit 9.”
The packaging of Okura only protects two opposing ends of the packaging.
However, as taught by Vander, it is known to provide protective packaging with spaces on four lateral sides formed by folding a corrugated blank, fig. 2 and 3. The packaging of Vander provides protection so that the item packaged is not likely to be broken or damaged, col. 1: 20-25. The blank of Vander is shaped to have a trapezoidal (tapered) section such that the width of the folded portion inside the blank is less than the width of the folded portion to the outside of the blank, fig. 3.
Since it is known to provide printer heads in packaging that has cushioning means with spaces formed by folding corrugated blanks, as taught by Okura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the device of Tamaki within a box with cushioning formed from a folded blank having four buffer sides as taught by Vander in order to provide added protection on four lateral sides of the liquid head device in order to reduce the impact due to dropping the liquid head package of Tamaki while being transported or shipped.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Tamaki as modified above has a space on four lateral sides, the longitudinal size is longer than the width side, thereby meeting the limitations of claims 8 and 9 to the degree that claims 8 and 9 can be understood: the liquid ejection head package according to claim 1, wherein the cushioning member further includes a second cushioning portion having a second space therein between a side surface of the box member and an edge of the liquid ejection head in a direction along a shorter side of the liquid ejection head and wherein a length of the first space in a longitudinal direction of the box member is greater than a length of the second space in a direction along a shorter side of the box member.
Regarding claim 11, the protective member of Tamaki as modified above contacts a corner formed by the first cushioning portion and the second cushioning portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami and Yoshida as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kamimura (US 7636529).
Regarding claim 18, the references applied above teach all of claim 17, as applied above. Takami does not disclose inner details of the protective member.
Kamimura is analogous art in regard to protective members for a printer head. Kamimura teaches cushioning members 270 and 268, formed from foam, col. 17 : 5-25, fig. 16B. At 270a, fig. 16B, Kamimura provides spaces in protective members for housing protrusions of a printer head and contact surfaces in the protective member where areas around the protrusion come into contact with the protective member. The spaces are not formed as through holes, however the spaces in the protective member will work equally as well as a closed hole (recess) or a through hole to protect the protrusions.
With this in mind, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective members of Takami to have recessed parts or through holes as claimed in order to restrict movement as per the teaching of Kamimura col 17: 5-25 thereby protecting any fragile parts at the end of the liquid ejection head.
Regarding claim 19, Takami does not disclose any particular material for the protective members. However as taught by Kamimura, col. 17: 5-25, it is known to form protective members from foam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the protective member material of Takami with foam as taught by Kamimura since the substitution of one known protective member material for another is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and further since foam is lightweight yet provides cushioning and impact resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 and dependents would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, Grune et al. (US 6209995), col. 8: 15-25, the “additional exterior cap” being an outer cap, not a spare cap, is the closest available analogous prior art only teaches that it is known to re-cover an w a cap after use. In addition, it is known to provide additional parts and accessories. However, there is no motivation for providing a spare cover member in particular nor is there any reason to provide a spare cover member when the original one can be replaced and re-used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799