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 .
Restriction
Applicants have amended claims 12-14 to depend from claim 1. Claims 12-14 thus contain all the limitations of claim 1, and are no longer mutually exclusive from Invention I. The amendments thus render the restriction of former Invention II moot. Applicants have also cancelled claims 15-19, rendering the restriction of former Invention III moot.
The Requirement for Restriction is withdrawn.
Claim Construction
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“inserted portion” in claims 6-8;
“inserting portion” in claims 6-8;
“engaged portion” in claims 6-8;
“engaging portion” in claims 6-8;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2, from which the remaining claims depend, recites the limitation “wherein the coupling member is constituted by laminating a plurality of sheet-like papers”. It is unclear which property of a sheet the terms “sheet-like papers” refers to. There is thus no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claims 3 and 4 repeat the term “sheet-like papers” referentially. However, due to the uncertain nature of which property of a sheet the terms “sheet-like papers” refers to, it is further unclear whether the repeated references refer to the same property, or a different property of a sheet. There is thus no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of claims 3 and 4.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner surmises that like a sheet, the paper is made of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Muramatsu et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0013963.
Regarding independent claim 1, a developer container (all the components in fig 9 with dots in them showing developer contained therein) comprising:
a container member (90) constituting an accommodating portion (92) which is configured to accommodate a developer and which is provided with an opening portion (¶ 80, the opening of the bag section 93);
a coupling member (the engagement section 94b) attached to the opening portion; and
a nozzle (72) coupled to the container member via the coupling member (fig 9), the nozzle including a discharging opening for permitting discharge of the developer to outside and a passage through which the developer passes from the opening portion of the accommodating portion to the discharge opening (fig 9, showing both a discharge opening and a passage),
wherein a main component of the container member (¶ 79) and the coupling member (¶ 79) is a paper , and wherein a main component of the nozzle (¶ 84) is a resin.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, further comprising a seal member (94a) configured to seal a gap between the coupling member and the nozzle (¶ 80),
wherein the seal member is separatable from the coupling member and the nozzle (all things are separable from other things through an appropriate application of force) by the coupling member and the nozzle being separated from each other (applying the appropriate force is much easier when there are not other things applying counteracting forces, such as the connection force between the coupling member and the nozzle).
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.
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 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0013963, in view of Toshiaki et al., JP 2016-182735.
Initially, Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein the coupling member is constituted by laminating a plurality of sheet-like papers” imparts a structural limitation, and is thus not a mere product-by-process limitation.
Muramatsu is silent as to how the coupling member is constructed from paper, and thus fails to teach:
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, wherein the coupling member is constituted by laminating a plurality of sheet-like papers; and,
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 2, wherein the coupling member includes an adhesive layer which adheres the plurality of sheet-like papers adjacent to each other.
Toshiaki et al. teach that anything constructable from paper can be formed by laminating a plurality of sheets of paper, using developer as an adhesive (“The three-dimensional unit L100 generates the intermediate structure M2 by adhering each laminated print sheet P11 to the back surface of the previously laminated print sheet with a developer layer. For example, the intermediate structure M2 has a cubic outer shape, and a three-dimensional structure M1 is present inside the intermediate structure M2 (see FIG. 13). The generated intermediate structure M2 is taken out from the three-dimensional unit L100 and conveyed to the extraction device G100.
The extraction device G100 extracts the three-dimensional structure M1 by removing portions other than the three-dimensional structure M1 from the intermediate structure M2. Thereby, the three-dimensional structure M1 is manufactured.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to apply the known technique of Toshiaki et al. to the device of Muramatsu. Such would have been a mere use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. MPEP 2143 (I)(C). Muramtsu teaches the base device made of paper, constructed through unspecified means. Toshiaki et al. teach paper constructions constructed as claimed through lamination and adhesives. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing could have applied the technique of Toshiaki et al. as instructed to construct the paper component of the device of Muramatsu. The results of following the instructions of Toshiaki et al. would have been entirely predictable. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to apply the known technique of Toshiaki et al. to construct the paper component of the device of Muramatsu.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2, the combination further teaches wherein the plurality of sheet- like papers are laminated in an alignment direction in which the container member and the nozzle are aligned.
Because laminating material is a three dimensional object which extends in all directions, the laminating material also extends in any alignment direction in which the container member and the nozzle are aligned.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 2, Muramatsu further teaches wherein the coupling member includes an inserted portion provided with a through hole (the portion of the coupling member to be inserted directly around the inserting portion of the nozzle) and an engaged portion (the engaged portion of the coupling member, which is all other than at the inserted portion, engaging with the nozzle so as to provide fluid communication of the developer),
wherein the nozzle includes an inserting portion (the portion inserted into the throughole of the inserted portion) which is inserted into the through hole of the inserted portion and an engaging portion engaging with the engaged portion (the engaging portion of the nozzle, which is all other than at the inserting portion, engaging with the coupling member so as to provide fluid communication of the developer), and
wherein the coupling member and the nozzle are coupled each other by engagement between the engaged portion and the engaging portion (as shown in fig 9).
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6, Muramatsu further teaches wherein the coupling member and the nozzle are constituted to be separatable from each other by at least one of the engaged portion and the engaging portion being deformed by a relative rotation about a rotational axis extending in an alignment direction in which the container member and the nozzle are aligned and by an engagement between the engaged portion and the engaging portion being released.
Anything is separatable from another through the appropriate application of force. Here, the desired force is a torsional force causing deformation. It is much more likely than not a sufficiently applied torsional force will cause enough deformation so as to break the components apart, such as, for example, when run over with the wheels of a car while on a pavement.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, which depend from claims 2 and 6 respectively, the combination further teaches wherein the plurality of papers include a first paper having a first shape and a second paper having a second shape different from the first shape; and,
the combination further teaches wherein the plurality of papers include a first paper having a first shape and a second paper having a second shape different from the first shape,
wherein at least a part of the engaged portion is formed by portions different from each other of the first paper and the second paper in shape.
A change in shape is a mere matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed coupling member significant. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). Such applies with greater force when the claims fail to specify any particular cross sectioning scheme. Here, there is no evidence to suggest that any one cross sectional shape, in an unspecified direction, has any significance over any other shape. There are many cross sectioning schemes available in the paper component of the device of Muramatsu that would yield different shapes of the various cross sections, such as, for example, taking cross sections along a direction perpendicular to any axis through which there is no axial symmetry. With another cross sectioning scheme, the shapes would be different from those in the first cross sectioning scheme. Insofar as the claims do not even specify a particular cross sectioning scheme, the claims provide no evidence of any significance to the shapes of the cross sections either. Such applies to the entirety of the coupling member, as well as its constituent parts, such as the engaged portion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0013963, in view of well known prior art.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 9, Muramatsu is silent as to the material of the seal, teaching only that the “opening seal section 94a [is] made of elastic material such as sponge, etc.” Muramatsu thus fails to teach wherein the seal member is composed of a polyurethane.
Examiner takes official notice that polyurethane is a known suitable elastic sponge material used in seals. See, e.g.: Sato et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0285565, ¶ 67; Wakayama, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0080607, ¶ 61; and, Fuwazaki et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2006/0024084, ¶ 107. See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide wherein the seal member is composed of a polyurethane. Such would have been a mere selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muramatsu et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0013963, in view of well known prior art.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 9, Muramatsu fails to teach a shutter configured to be movable relative to the nozzle between a shielding position where the shutter shields the discharging opening and an open position where the shutter opens the discharging opening.
Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of electrophotography to provide movable shutters on the ends of developer containers to prevent developer from spilling out. See, e.g.: Erickson et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0103233, ¶ 39; Matsumoto et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2013/0272750, ¶ 95; and, Takami, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2005/0117936, ¶ 106. See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide a shutter configured to be movable relative to the nozzle between a shielding position where the shutter shields the discharging opening and an open position where the shutter opens the discharging opening. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to prevent developer from spilling out.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art either alone or in combination teaches the following limitations in combination with the other limitations:
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1, wherein at a first position in an alignment direction where the coupling member and the nozzle are aligned, a polar moment of inertia of area of the coupling member in a first cross section perpendicular to the alignment direction is larger than a polar moment of inertia of area of the coupling member in a second cross section perpendicular to the alignment direction at a second position in the alignment direction,
wherein the second position is a position not including the coupling member in the second cross section, and
wherein the first position is a position closer to the opening portion in the alignment direction than the second position is.
A mere change in shape is insufficient to accomplish the above, for example by providing a conical coupling member. Although a conical coupling member may satisfy such limitations, there would need to be a simultaneous consideration of the thickness of such a conical coupling to satisfy the limitations. As such, the limitations are more than a mere general change in shape, but rather, a particular class of shapes with significance.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights