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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 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.
With respect to claim 1, the phrase “and is made of a material containing recycled plastics” in line 15 appears to be a double recitation since lines 12-13 already recite that the cap except for the first sealing portion is part or all of the liquid-non-contact-section which was recited in lines 4-5 as containing recycled plastics.
With respect to claim 3, the language in lines 2-4 appear to be double recitations of language that has been previously recited in claim 1, lines 6-8.
With respect to claim 4, the language in lines 2-4 appear to be double recitations of language that has been previously recited in claim 1, lines 6-8. Additionally, the term “a cap” in line 5 is unclear in meaning since a cap was previously recited in claim 1 and it is unclear if the cap recited in line 5 is referring to an additional cap or the cap previously recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 5, the language in lines 2-4 (with the exception of the language “that is separate from the main body”) appear to be double recitations of language that has been previously recited in claim 1, lines 6-8.
With respect to claim 6, the language in lines 2-4 (with the exception of the language “that is separate from and removably attached to the main body”) appear to be double recitations of language that has been previously recited in claim 1, lines 6-8.
With respect to claim 7, the language in lines 2-4 appear to be double recitations of language that has been previously recited in claim 1, lines 6-8.
With respect to claim 8, the language in lines 2-4 appear to be double recitations of language that has been previously recited in claim 1, lines 6-8.
With respect to claim 9, the language in lines 2-4 appear to be double recitations of language that has been previously recited in claim 1, lines 6-8.
With respect to claim 11, this claim is unclear in meaning and scope with respect to what structure comprises the liquid-contact section. Specifically, it is noted that the claim recites a liquid-contact section and a liquid-non-contact section in lines 2-5 and then recites structure in lines 6-19 and designates that some of the recited structure is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section in line 20. However, there is no specific structure recited that has been designated as part of the liquid-contact section and therefore it is not clear what part of the ink container is part or all of the liquid-contact section.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (US 2022/0032638 A1) in view of Kitagawa (US 2010/0026774 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mizutani et al. teaches an ink container (Fig. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) comprising:
a liquid-contact section that is to be in contact with the ink in the ink container (i.e., the interior surfaces of the ink container 64 and ink outlet portion 65);
a liquid-non-contact section that is to be kept from contact with the ink (i.e., the exterior surfaces of the container 64, the ink outlet portion 65, and cap 68);
a main body 64 configured to keep the ink IK therein;
an ink outlet portion 65, 66, 67 linked to the main body 64 to enable the ink to flow out of the ink container (see paragraph [0102]); and
a cap 68 including a first sealing portion 135 with which the ink outlet portion 65 is sealed and the cap 68 except the first sealing portion 135 has a greater volume than the first sealing portion 135, as shown in Figure 36. Note that since the sealing portion 135 seals the outlet portion 65 as described in paragraph [0171], it is inherently a portion that is exposed to contact with the ink.
While Mizutani et al. does not specifically teach that the first sealing portion is part of the liquid contact section (i.e., made of virgin plastic material) and the cap except for the first sealing portion is part of all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., made of recycled plastic material), note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a portion to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and a portion to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include any surfaces in contact with the ink (such as the first sealing portion of the cap) to be comprised of virgin plastic material while the surfaces not to be in contact with the ink (such as the remainder of the cap except the first sealing portion) to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide an ink container that has high mechanical strength and lower cost (as provided by the recycled plastic material) while also allowing for chemical resistance to the ink being stored inside (as provided by the virgin plastic material).
With respect to claim 3, Mizutani et al. teaches the ink container (Figs. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) further comprises:
an identification portion (i.e., color portion of 67 or convex portions 71, 72) that is disposed in at least a part of an outer surface region of the ink outlet portion 65 to enable identification of a type of the ink (see, for example, paragraphs [0138] and [0169]).
Again, while Mizutani et al. does not specifically teach that the identification portion is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., made of recycled plastic material), note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a portion to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and a portion to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include any surfaces not to be in contact with the ink (such as the identification portion of the outer surface region of the ink outlet portion) to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties as desired.
With respect to claim 4, Mizutani et al. teaches an ink container (Figs. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) comprising:
the cap 68 configured to be attached to the ink outlet portion 65, wherein
the ink outlet portion 65, 66, 67 includes a first engagement portion 69 that extends along at least a part of a periphery of the ink outlet portion 65, and
the cap 68 includes a second engagement portion (i.e., female threaded portion described in paragraph [0102]) that is configured to be engaged with the first engagement portion 69. See, in particular, Figures 6 and 10-11 and 29-31 and paragraph [0102].
Mizutani et al. does not specifically teach the ink container as recited including the first engagement portion that is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., made of recycled plastic material) and the second engagement portion that is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., made of recycled plastic material). However, note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a portion to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and a portion to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include any of the surfaces not to be in contact with the ink (such as the first and second engagement portions of the ink outlet portion and the cap) to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the desired mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties.
With respect to claim 5, Mizutani et al. teaches an ink container (Figs. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) comprising:
the ink outlet portion 65, 66, 67 that is separate from the main body and that is linked to the main body to enable the ink to flow out of the ink container; and
a fastening mechanism 78, 82 configured to fasten the ink outlet portion 65, 66, 67 to the main body 64, wherein
the fastening mechanism includes
a first locking portion 78 disposed on an outer side of the main body 64, and
a second locking portion 82 that is disposed on the ink outlet portion 66 and that is configured to be engaged with the first locking portion, the second locking portion 82 being located on the outer side of the main body 64 in a fastened state in which the ink outlet portion is fastened to the main body with the first and second locking portions engaged with each other. See, in particular, Figures 10-11 and paragraph [0111] of MIzutani et al.
Mizutani et al. does not specifically teach the fastening mechanism is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., comprised of recycled plastic material). Note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a portion to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and a portion to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include any of the surfaces not to be in contact with the ink (such as the fastening mechanism) to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the desired mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties.
With respect to claim 6, Mizutani et al. teaches an ink container (Fig. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) comprising:
the ink outlet portion 65, 66 that is separate from and removably attached to the main body 64 and that is linked to the main body to enable the ink IK to flow out of the ink container, wherein
the main body 64 includes
an open portion 80 linked to the ink outlet portion 65, 66, and
a third engagement portion 78 that is located on an outer side of the main body 64, and
the ink outlet portion 65, 66 includes
a fourth engagement portion 82 that is configured to be engaged with the third engagement portion 78, and
a second sealing portion 74 with which the open portion 80 is sealed in a state in which the third engagement portion and the fourth engagement portion are engaged with each other. See, in particular, Figures 38-39.
Mizutani et al. fails to specifically teach that the third engagement portion is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., comprised of recycled plastic material) and the fourth engagement portion is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., comprised of recycled plastic material). Note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a portion to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and a portion to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include any of the surfaces not to be in contact with the ink (such as the third and fourth engagement portions) to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the desired mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties.
With respect to claim 7, MIzutani et al. teaches an ink container (Fig. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) comprising:
the main body 64 has a bottom portion (i.e., base portion including elements 70, Fig. 7) and a side portion (i.e., side portions between the ink outlet and the bottom, Fig. 7),
the ink outlet portion 65, 66, 67 and the bottom portion being coupled to each other with the side portion extending therebetween (see, for example, Figures 7-8, 10-11, 29-31).
Mizutani et al. does not specifically teach the details of the main body and whether it includes at least a part of the side portion having a wall of a plurality of layers, one layer of which being a first outer layer facing outward, and the first outer layer constitutes part or all of the liquid-non-contact section. Note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a wall portion comprising a plurality of layers including an inner layer to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and an outer layer to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include the wall portion to include a plurality of layers, one layer of which being a first outer layer facing outward to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the desired mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties.
With respect to claim 8, MIzutani et al. teaches an ink container (Fig. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) comprising:
the main body has a bottom portion (i.e., the base portion including elements 70 as shown in Figures 6-8, 10-11, 29-31) and a side portion (i.e., side walls), the ink outlet portion 65, 66, 67 and the bottom portion being coupled to each other with the side portion extending therebetween.
MIzutani et al. fails to specifically teach at least a part of the bottom portion has a wall of a plurality of layers, one layer of which being a second outer layer facing outward, and the second outer layer constitutes part or all of the liquid-non-contact section. Note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a wall portion comprising a plurality of layers including an inner layer to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and an outer layer to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include the wall portion to include a plurality of layers, one layer of which being a first outer layer facing outward to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the desired mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties.
With respect to claim 9, Mizutani et al. teaches an ink container (Fig. 6-12, 29-31, and 34-39) comprising:
the main body 64 has a bottom portion (i.e., base portion including elements 70 as shown in Figures 6-8, 10-11, 29-31) and a side portion (i.e., side walls), the ink outlet portion 65, 66, 67 and the bottom portion being coupled to each other with the side portion extending therebetween.
MIzutani et al. does not specifically teach the details of the main body and whether it includes at least a part of the side portion has a wall of a plurality of layers, one layer of which being a first outer layer facing outward, at least a part of the bottom portion has a wall of a plurality of layers, one layer of which being a second outer layer facing outward, and the first and second outer layers are continuous with each other and constitute part or all of the liquid-non-contact section.
Note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a wall portion including both the side portion and the bottom portion of the container comprising a plurality of layers including an inner layer to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and an outer layer to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include the wall portion to include a plurality of layers, one layer of which being a first outer layer comprising a side portion and bottom portion of the container facing outward to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the desired mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties.
With respect to claim 10, note that Kitagawa teaches the liquid-contact section and the liquid-non-contact section are unitarily formed or formed as a combination of separate members, as described in paragraphs [0056]-[0061] and [0076]-[0082]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of Mizutani et al. to include liquid-contact section and the liquid-non-contact section to be unitarily formed or formed as a combination of separate members as taught by Kitagawa to provide an easily manufactured ink container including both virgin and recycled plastic material.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (JP 2019-051605 A) in view of Kitagawa (US 2010/0026774 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Mizutani et al. teaches an ink container 61, 62 comprising:
a liquid-contact section that is to be in contact with the ink in the ink container (i.e., the interior surfaces of the ink container 64 and ink outlet portion 65);
a liquid-non-contact section that is to be kept from contact with the ink (i.e., the exterior surfaces of the container 64, the ink outlet portion 65, and cap 63);
a main body 64, 67 configured to keep the ink therein;
an ink outlet portion 65 that is separate from the main body 64, 67 and linked to the main body 64, 67 to enable the ink to flow out of the ink container (see paragraphs [0049]-[0052]); and
a fastening mechanism 69, 81, 200, 300 configured to fasten the ink outlet portion 65 to the main body 64, 67 wherein
the fastening mechanism includes
external threads 69,
a first locking portion 300 on an outer side of the main body 64, 67,
internal threads 81, and
a second locking portion 200 that is on the ink outlet portion 65 and that is configured to be engaged with the first locking portion 300, the second locking portion 200 being on the outer side of the main body in a fastened state in which the ink outlet portion is fastened to the main body with the first and second locking portions 200, 300 engaged with each other and the external threads 69 and the internal threads 81 engaged with each other, as shown in Figures 7-10.
Mizutani et al. does not specifically teach the fastening mechanism is part or all of the liquid-non-contact section (i.e., comprised of recycled plastic material). Note that Kitagawa teaches it is well known in the art to have an ink container including a portion to be in contact with the ink which is comprised of a virgin plastic material and a portion to be kept from contact with the ink which is comprised of a recycled plastic material. See, for example, paragraphs [0013] and [0054] of Kitagawa. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ink container of Mizutani et al. to include any of the surfaces not to be in contact with the ink (such as the fastening mechanism) to be comprised of recycled plastic material to provide a low cost ink container that has the desired mechanical strength and chemical resistance properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections.
In response to applicant's argument that the resulting configuration of the combined teachings of Mizutani and Kitagawa would be one in which the inner layer of Mizutani’s bottle body is formed of virgin resin and the outer layer is formed of recycled resin, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, Kitagawa is being relied upon for teaching the concept of using a virgin resin material for portions of an ink container in that may be contact with the ink and using a recycled resin material for portions of an ink container that are not in contact with the ink. Specifically, Kitagawa teaches that the use of recycled resin is desirable for addressing environmental problems and allowing reutilization of portions of the ink containers (see paragraph [0008]) while the use of virgin resin is desirable for high mechanical strength, high chemical resistance, and excellent gas barrier properties (see paragraph [0006]). Additional attention is invited to Kitagawa in paragraphs [0013] and [0054]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in looking at the teachings of Kitagawa, to use a virgin resin for the portion of the ink container which contacts the ink and a recycled resin for the portion of the ink container which does not contact the ink in the container of Mitzutani to provide an ink container that has high mechanical strength and lower cost (as provided by the recycled plastic material) while also allowing for chemical resistance to the ink being stored inside (as provided by the virgin plastic material).
In view of the above reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukasawa et al. (US 2022/0126592 A1) teaches an ink refilling container having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
