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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurui et al. US 20040160496 A1, Sasaki US 7,241,002 B1, and Treleaven US 20030230654 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tsurui et al. teaches:
A liquid storage container (Paragraph 0002, “The present invention relates to a replaceable liquid storage container”) comprising a storage unit configured to store liquid (Paragraph 0039, “As shown in FIG. 3, the liquid storage container 1000 comprises a liquid storage part (ink storage part) 200”), a supply unit configured to externally supply liquid stored in the storage unit (Paragraph 0039, “The connecting unit 100 has a plurality of connecting parts for inserting through a liquid supplying hollow needle and an atmosphere guiding hollow needle”), and a protective member configured to protect the supply unit (Paragraph 0045, “As shown in FIG. 5, the connecting unit 100 is fixed on the opening part 201 of the liquid storage part (container main body) 200 in the sealed state by screwing the cap member 400.” In this case, the cap fulfills the role of a protecting member, analogous to the tank cover 5 of the present disclosure.),
the protective member has such a portion that while the protective member is attached to the supply unit, a relationship between a side surface width A of the protective member on a first end side and a side surface width B of the protective member on a side of the storage unit opposite to the first end side satisfies 1 < A/B < 7 (Figures 4 and 5, Item 400. Note that the cap has a side surface towards the storage unit, B, which is smaller than the side surface towards the connector, A. Figure 5 below shows the surface width of A to be less than seven times the surface width of B).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that the protective member contains a plastic material or a resin material obtained by mixing plastic materials.
However, Sasaki teaches an ink cartridge having a protector and case made of a resin material (Column 3 Lines 11-14, “Ink storage element 100, case 200, and protector 300 may comprise a resin material, e.g., nylon, polyethylene, polypropylene…”). 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 Tsurui et al. to have that the protective member contains a resin material obtained by mixing plastic materials so that the ink cartridge may be incinerated for waste disposal, as taught by Sasaki (Column 3 Lines 15-16, “…such that they may be incinerated for waste disposal”).
Modified Tsurui et al. does not disclose that the plastic material is a recycled plastic material.
However, Treleaven discloses a method of making plastic materials from recyclable plastics (Paragraph 0011, “The following detailed description will be made with reference to the desired method of making plastic materials, such as plastic lumber, from recyclable plastics… The method of the present invention can easily be adapted to make any recycled plastic products…”). 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 Tsurui et al. to have that the protective member contains recycled plastic material in order to have a more sustainable method of manufacture by utilizing plastic waste, as taught by Treleaven (Paragraph 0004, “On average, post-consumer plastic waste comprises approximately 20% by volume of all municipal waste”).
Regarding claim 2, Tsurui et al. teaches:
the first end side of the protective member comprises an opening in which the supply unit is provided (Figure 5, Item 528, where the front end is the side corresponding to side surface width A),
the protective member has such a portion that a relationship between the side surface width A and the side surface width B in a same cross section corresponding to a plane intersecting with the opening satisfies 1 < A/B < 7 (Figures 5, Item 400. Figure 5 above shows a cross section of the cap intersecting with the opening having a side surface towards the storage unit, B, which is smaller than the side surface towards the connector, A. The figure above shows the surface width of A to be less than seven times the surface width of B).
Regarding claim 3,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that the recycled plastic material is a polyethylene material.
However, Sasaki teaches an ink cartridge having a protector and case made of a polyethylene resin material (Column 3 Lines 11-14, “Ink storage element 100, case 200, and protector 300 may comprise a resin material, e.g., nylon, polyethylene, polypropylene…”).
In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, the selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious.
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 Tsurui et al. to have that the recycled plastic material is a polyethylene material so that the ink cartridge may be incinerated for waste disposal, as taught by Sasaki (Column 3 Lines 15-16, “…such that they may be incinerated for waste disposal”).
Regarding claim 7,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that the recycled plastic material is a polypropylene material.
However, Sasaki teaches an ink cartridge having a protector and case made of a polypropylene resin material (Column 3 Lines 11-14, “Ink storage element 100, case 200, and protector 300 may comprise a resin material, e.g., nylon, polyethylene, polypropylene…”).
In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, the selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious.
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 Tsurui et al. to have that the recycled plastic material is a polypropylene material so that the ink cartridge may be incinerated for waste disposal, as taught by Sasaki (Column 3 Lines 15-16, “…such that they may be incinerated for waste disposal”).
Regarding claim 11,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that the side surface width A of the protective member on the first end side is between 4.3 mm and 6.0 mm inclusive.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Tsurui discloses that the side surface width A on the first end side is between one and seven times the side surface width B on the side opposing the first end side, 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 Tsurui et al. to have that the side surface width A of the protective member on the first end side being between 4.3 mm and 6.0 mm.
Regarding claim 12,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that the recycled plastic material is a post-consumer recycled material.
However, Treleaven teaches that recyclable plastics may include post-consumer plastic waste (Paragraph 0011, “Recyclable plastics typically include post-consumer plastic waste…”). 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 Tsurui et al. to have that the recycled plastic material is a post-consumer recycled material in order to have a more sustainable method of manufacture by utilizing post-consumer plastic waste, as taught by Treleaven (Paragraph 0004, “On average, post-consumer plastic waste comprises approximately 20% by volume of all municipal waste”).
Regarding claim 13,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that the recycled plastic material is a pre-consumer recycled material.
However, Treleaven teaches that recyclable plastics may include pre-consumer plastic waste (Paragraph 0011, “Recyclable plastics typically include… post-industrial plastic waste.” Note that pre-consumer material is also referred to as post-industrial material and so a recycled material consisting of post-industrial plastic waste would be a pre-consumer recycled material).
Furthermore, the use of pre-consumer recycled materials, also known as post-industrial or PIR materials, as a recycled plastic material for manufacture is an obvious simple substitution which is known in the art to yield predictable results.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing
date of the invention to modify Tsurui et al. to use a pre-consumer recycled plastic material so as to
utilize industrial waste, as taught by Treleaven.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurui et al. US 20040160496 A1, Sasaki US 7,241,002 B1, and Treleaven US 20030230654 A1 as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Aoi et al. US 20060050114 A1.
Regarding claim 4,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that a Charpy impact value of the recycled plastic material is 4 kJ/m2 or more.
However, Aoi et al. teaches that a polyolefin compound forming an ink tank may be selected according to a required impact strength (Paragraph 0023, “In the present invention, the polyolefin forming the ink tank may be selected and used in accordance with required characteristics such as impact strength, chemical resistance, rigidity and the like”). Therefore, it would be obvious to form the protective member of Tsurui et al. from a material having a Charpy impact value of 4 kJ/m2 or more so as to improve the impact strength and rigidity of the protective member.
Regarding claim 8,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that a Charpy impact value of the recycled plastic material is 3 kJ/m2 or more.
However, Aoi et al. teaches that a polyolefin compound forming an ink tank may be selected according to a required impact strength (Paragraph 0023, “In the present invention, the polyolefin forming the ink tank may be selected and used in accordance with required characteristics such as impact strength, chemical resistance, rigidity and the like”). Therefore, it would be obvious to form the protective member of Tsurui et al. from a material having a Charpy impact value of 3 kJ/m2 or more so as to improve the impact strength and rigidity of the protective member.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurui et al. US 20040160496 A1, Sasaki US 7,241,002 B1, and Treleaven US 20030230654 A1 as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Arai et al. US 6,899,028 B2.
Regarding claim 5,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that an MFR value of the recycled plastic material is between 1 g/10 min and 15 g/10 min inclusive.
However, Arai et al. discloses that a physical property of a resin suitable for injection molding is a melt flow rate (MFR) in a range from 5 g/10 min to 50 g/10 min (Column 7 Lines 12-17, “As a physical property value of PP suitable for injection molding, the melt flow rate (MFR) in accordance with JIS K7210 (230° C., test load: 21.2N) is preferably in a range from 5 to 50 g/10 min. These physical property values are similarly applied to the following embodiments of the invention”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that the melt flow rate of the recycled plastic material is between 1 g/10 min and 15 g/10 min so that the recycled plastic material is suitable for injection molding.
Regarding claim 9,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that an MFR value of the recycled plastic material is between 30 g/10 min and 50 g/10 min inclusive.
However, Arai et al. discloses that a physical property of a resin suitable for injection molding is a melt flow rate (MFR) in a range from 5 g/10 min to 50 g/10 min (Column 7 Lines 12-17, “As a physical property value of PP suitable for injection molding, the melt flow rate (MFR) in accordance with JIS K7210 (230° C., test load: 21.2N) is preferably in a range from 5 to 50 g/10 min. These physical property values are similarly applied to the following embodiments of the invention”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that the melt flow rate of the recycled plastic material is between 30 g/10 min and 50 g/10 min so that the recycled plastic material is suitable for injection molding.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsurui et al. US 20040160496 A1, Sasaki US 7,241,002 B1, and Treleaven US 20030230654 A1 as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Nagaoka et al. US 20200101750 A1.
Regarding claim 6,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that a flexural modulus of the recycled plastic material is between 500 MPa and 1,500 MPa inclusive.
However, Nagaoka et al. teaches an ink cartridge housing having a flexural modulus equal to or above 800MPa (Paragraph 0050,” The flexural modulus of the housing 70 is… more preferably equal to or above 800 MPa…”). 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 Tsurui et al. to have that the flexural modulus of the recycled plastic material is between 500MPa and 1,500 MPa so that it may retain its original shape under pressure (Paragraph 0048, “On the other hand, the housing 70 (the outer layer) having relatively high rigidity retains the original shape irrespective of an amount of consumption of the ink”).
Regarding claim 10,
Tsurui et al. does not disclose that a flexural modulus of the recycled plastic material is 800 MPa or more.
However, Nagaoka et al. teaches an ink cartridge housing having a flexural modulus equal to or above 800MPa (Paragraph 0050,” The flexural modulus of the housing 70 is… more preferably equal to or above 800 MPa…”). 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 Tsurui et al. to have that the flexural modulus of the recycled plastic material is 800 MPa or more so that it may retain its original shape under pressure (Paragraph 0048, “On the other hand, the housing 70 (the outer layer) having relatively high rigidity retains the original shape irrespective of an amount of consumption of the ink”).
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 10am-6pm.
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
/SHELBY L FIDLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights