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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 08/19/26.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3446403 to Serio in view of US 7748579 to Shin.
As per claim 1, Serio discloses a powder supply container comprising:
a first case (50, 82) having an internal space having a columnar shape (Fig. 2-4);
a second case (14, 20) disposed to overlap the internal space to be rotatable around a central axis of the internal space (Fig. 1 & 4);
a first lid (50) including an opening portion (54);
a shutter (20), wherein
the first lid closes a first direction side of the central axis of the internal space in a state where the opening portion is closed by the shutter (Col. 3, Ln. 56-62),
and the shutter follows the rotation of the second case to open and close the opening portion (Col. 3, ¶ 3; Col. 3, Ln. 71-75 – Col. 4, Ln. 1-2; Col. 5, Ln. 44-52).
Serio does not disclose a second lid detachably attached to the second case such that rotation of the second lid causes rotation of the second case around the central axis of the internal space when the second lid is attached to the second case; and the second lid closes a second direction side of the central axis of the internal space opposite to a first direction. Shin teaches a powder supply container (Fig. 7) comprising a first case (200) rotating relative to a second case (100’) and a second lid (160’) detachably attached to the second case (Col. 9, Ln. 29-34) and the second lid closing a second direction side of a central axis of an internal space oppose to a first direction (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Serio according to the aforementioned teaches from Shin for reasons including to enable convenient access to an interior of the second case for refilling material into it. The Serio-Shin combination does not explicitly disclose rotation of the second lid causes rotation of the second case around the central axis of the internal space when the second lid is attached to the second case, however, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Serio-Shin combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used as claimed – i.e. such that rotation of the second lid causes rotation of the second case around the central axis of the internal space when the second lid is attached to the second case.
As per claim 2, Serio further discloses the first case includes a rotation restriction portion that is a through-hole (56; Fig. 2), and the second case is rotated by the powder supply container through the rotation restriction portion (Col. 3, ¶ 7). The Serio-Shin combination does not disclose the second case is rotated by the powder supply container through the rotation restriction portion when the powder supply container is mounted on a sheet manufacturing apparatus. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Serio-Shin combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used as claimed – i.e. such that the second case is rotated by the powder supply container through the rotation restriction portion when the powder supply container is mounted on a sheet manufacturing apparatus.
As per claim 3, Serio further discloses an angle of the rotation of the second case is in a range of from 0-180 degrees (Fig. 2).
As per claim 4, the Serio-Shin combination discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in regards to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose the second lid is rotatable relative to the first case about the central axis of the internal space. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Serio-Shin combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used as claimed – i.e. such that the second lid is rotatable relative to the first case about the central axis of the internal space.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, the remarks filed 8/19/26 have been fully considered but are moot because they do apply to the grounds of rejections contained in this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights