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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of CLAIMS 1-9 in the reply filed on 04 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 September 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 27 September 2024 are accepted.
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.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flat portion" in Line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites a first flat portion and an other flat portion. It is unclear which flat portion applicant intends to be “the flat portion” in Line 15.
Claims 2-9 are similarly rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Further, Claim 1 recites “when viewed from a direction parallel to the one side surface of the first flat portion”. It is unclear as to which direction of viewing this is meant to be, as a direction parallel to the one side surface of the first flat portion could be the L direction or the W direction in Fig. 1 of applicant’s drawings. Examiner suggests using terminology consistent with the specification and drawings. In this case, Fig. 1 includes the W, L, and H direction illustrated, however the claims do no refer to the illustrated directions.
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 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.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okubo et al. (US 6,106,112), hereinafter Okubo.
With regard to Claim 1, Okubo discloses an ink cartridge (Figs. 1-6; ink feed container; Col. 1, Line 65 to Col. 2, Line 22) comprising:
a box body (case main body 1) including a box main body (Fig. 1; case main body 1) with an aperture (Fig. 1; opening as shown) and a lid (lid body 25) covering the aperture (Figs. 1-2, 4), and a bag body installed inside the box body and including ink inside (Figs. 1-6; ink storage bags 22U,L; Col. 2, Lines 1-20);
wherein the ink cartridge includes a plate (partition plate 15; Col. 2, Line 8; Figs. 1-2, 7) including at least one folded portion and a first flat portion and other flat portion(s) defined by at least one fold at the folded portion (See Fig. 2 below);
the bag body is adhered to one side surface of the first flat portion (Fig. 1; adhesive tapes 21; Col. 3, Line 25-31); and
at least a portion of the other flat portion(s) is positioned on the one side surface (the other flat portion is connected to the one side surface of the first flat portion as shown in Fig. 2 below), and a length of the other flat portion(s) when viewed from a direction parallel to the one side surface of the first flat portion in a state where the plate and the bag body are in the box body is equal to a length of an area in which the flat portion is inside the box body when viewed from a direction parallel to the one side surface of the first flat portion (see Figs. 1, 2, and 7; the length of the other flat portion is the same width as that of the first flat portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 2, Okubo further discloses wherein the plate is a plate including three flat portions defined by two folded portions that do not intersect (See Fig. 2 below); the other flat portions include a second flat portion and a third flat portion positioned on opposite sides across the first flat portion (See Fig. 2 below); and when the box body is closed, an end of the second flat portion and an end of the third flat portion are respectively in contact with mutually opposing corner portions of the box main body and the lid (See Figs. 1, 2, and 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
470
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 3, Okubo further discloses wherein when the box body is closed, a gap exists in a portion of the closed box body (Fig. 1; engagement hole 10; Col. 3, Line 66 to Col. 4, Line 10); the plate is made of a light-shielding material (Col. 4, Line 10-12, metal material) and is positioned to block the gap when the box body is closed (engagement projection 14 engages with lower engagement hole 10).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo, in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 5,666,146), hereinafter Mochizuki.
With regard to Claim 9, Okubo further discloses an inkjet recording device (Col. 3, Line 39; Col. 1, Lines 24-35) comprising: the ink cartridge according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Okubo does not explicitly disclose an ink head to discharge ink in the ink cartridge; and an ink supply system to guide the ink in the ink cartridge to the ink head.
The secondary reference of Mochizuki discloses an ink head to discharge ink in the ink cartridge (Fig. 5; head 18; Col. 5); and an ink supply system (Fig. 5; ink feeding tube 19; Col. 5) to guide the ink in the ink cartridge to the ink head (Fig. 5; ink feeding tube 19; Col. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the head and supply system of Mochizuki, with the recording device of Okubo, in order to feed ink for printing, as taught by Mochizuki (Cols. 1 and 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 and the rejection under 35 USC 112 is resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 4 is that applicants claimed invention includes an ink cartridge wherein the plate is folded in a same direction multiple times respectively on both end sides of the plate to define mutually substantially parallel sides to define polygonal folded portions in a cross-sectional view. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claims 5-7 are allowable because they depend from Claim 4.
Claim 8 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 and the rejection under 35 USC 112 is resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 8 is that applicants claimed invention includes an ink cartridge wherein the plate includes four or more flat portions defined by folds in a same direction folded at least three times at folds that do not intersect. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights