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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and extending in a direction extending the tube” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a direction extending the nozzle” and “in the direction extending the tube” are grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in the direction extending the nozzle” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12257843. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Maruyama (11673405).
Regarding claim 1, the Maruyama reference discloses a liquid supplying
apparatus (10; Figure 3D) comprising: a liquid container (15) having an internal space
for storing liquid (i.e., ink) including: a nozzle (see Annotated Figure 7A) and
a first wall (25) located around the nozzle; and
a tank (11) having a body defining a chamber for storing the liquid (i.e., ink), the body including:
a tube (22) connecting the chamber to an outside of the body (see Figures 7A, 7B); and
a second wall (24) located around the tube and extending in a direction extending the
tube, wherein
the tube (22) is configured to be inserted into the liquid container so as to allow the liquid to flow out from the liquid container (15; Fig. 7B) to the chamber of the tank, and
in a case where the liquid container is connected to the tank, the first wall (25) is located
between the tube (22) and the second wall (24).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein a first length of the first wall (25) in a direction extending the nozzle is greater than a second length of the second wall (24) in the direction extending the tube (22). See Figure 7B.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the liquid container (15) further includes a key member (14 or 25a), and the liquid supplying apparatus further includes a receiver key member (29) corresponding to the key member. See Figure 9.
Regarding claim 5, the tank (11) includes the receiver key member (29).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a plurality of tanks (11C, 11K, 11M, 11Y) including the tank, each of the plurality of tanks corresponding to a color of the liquid to be stored (see col. 4, lines 5 – 34), wherein a position of the receiver key member is different with respect to each of the plurality of tanks, and the key member is positioned so that the key member is engaged to the receiver key member of one of the plurality of tanks corresponding to the key member. See col. 7, lines 17 – 45.
Regarding claim 7, the key member (14) is located in a space between the nozzle and the first wall (25).
Regarding claim 8, the key member (14) is connected to the nozzle and the first wall (25). See Annotated Figure 9.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the key member is connected to the nozzle and is not connected to the first wall. The structure of the nozzle can be construed as a key member, which is not connected to the first wall.
Regarding claim 10, the key member (25a) is not connected to the nozzle and is connected to the first wall (25).
Regarding claim 11, the key member (29) extends outward from the first wall (25).
Regarding claim 12, an upper end of the first wall is located above a forward end of the nozzle. See Annotated Figure, below.
PNG
media_image3.png
370
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 6, discussed supra.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama in view of Mizutani et al. (2019/0299624).
Regarding claim 3, the Maruyama reference discloses the liquid container having outer cap threads (see Annotated Figure 10A) being a third size of the circular wall being greater than a second size, but doesn't explicitly include a cap. However, the Mizutani et al. reference discloses another ink refill container (64) having a cap (68) to cover and protect the ink outlet (65; see para. [0085]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Maruyama device to have a cap (if not already) as, for example, taught by the Mizutani et al. reference in order to cover and protect the ink outlet.
PNG
media_image4.png
378
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753