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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 3 recites “the specific portion further includes at least any one of” followed by a listing of three aspect limitations combined with “or”. By the use of “at least any one of” and “or”, only one of the three aspects is required for a rejection of the claim, not all three.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: in at least claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, “section" coupled with functional language (e.g. “that is…”, “that positions…”, “that partitions…”, “is configured to…”).
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya et al. (US 20220097389 A1, from IDS dated 09/16/2025), hereinafter referred to as Oya, in view of Leiser et al. (US 20200346463 A1, from IDS dated 09/16/2025), hereinafter referred to as Leiser.
Regarding claim 1, Oya teaches a liquid container (cartridge 4; Fig. 11) comprising:
a liquid accommodation container (liquid container 401; Fig. 12); and
an adapter (adapter 402; Fig. 12),
wherein the liquid container includes a liquid contact section that is in contact with a liquid and a non-liquid contact section that is not in contact with the liquid (as understood by the examiner, the liquid container 401 has a liquid containing portion 450 that would come in contact with liquid as a container for the liquid, and the insertion section 446 of the adapter 402 may come in contact with liquid as the area for a supply path of liquid; at para. 0082; as understood by the examiner, the majority of adapter 402, at least other than insertion section 446, would not come into contact with liquid being separate from the container; Fig. 3, 11, 12), and
a specific portion is at least a portion of the non-liquid contact section in the adapter (the majority of adapter 402, at least other than insertion section 446; Fig. 3, 11, 12).
Oya teaches wherein the adapter may be made of a different material from that of the liquid container (at para. 0077), however Oya does not teach wherein the specific portion that is at least a portion of the non-liquid contact section in the adapter is made of a material containing recycled plastic.
Leiser teaches a liquid container (print liquid supply apparatus 1, 101; Fig. 1-7) with a liquid accommodation container (container 3, 103; Fig. 1-9) and an adapter (interface structure 5, 105; Fig. 1-9) wherein at least part of a non-liquid contact section of the adapter (base 169, back 126 and side walls 139, 137; at para. 0191) are made of a material containing recycled plastic (“recycled fiber filled plastics material, such as a non-glass fiber recycled PET”; at para. 0191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid container of Oya to have a specific portion that is at least a portion of the non-liquid contact section in the adapter that is made of a material containing recycled plastic for the purpose of using materials that could reduce an impact on the environment, as taught by Leiser (at para. 0310).
Regarding claim 3, Oya as modified by Leiser teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, and Oya further teaches wherein the liquid container is detachably mounted (at para. 0038) in a printing apparatus (printing device 10; Fig. 1),
the specific portion includes a terminal mounting section (annotated portion of Fig. 14 below) in which a liquid container side terminal (cartridge side terminal 521; Fig. 13, 14) that is electrically coupled to an apparatus side terminal (device side terminal 721; Fig. 9) of the printing apparatus is mounted (at para. 0052, 0088), and
a terminal positioning section (terminal positioning portion 906; Fig. 13, 14) that positions the liquid container side terminal with respect to the apparatus side terminal (at para. 0094), and
the specific portion further includes at least any one of
an insertion section (not required due to “or” ) that partitions an insertion opening section (insertion opening 446; Fig. 11) into which a liquid introduction section (liquid introduction portion 642; Fig. 7) of the printing apparatus is inserted (at para. 0079),
a supply section positioning section (supply portion positioning portion 448; Fig. 11) that positions a liquid supply section (liquid supply portion 442; Fig. 11) of the liquid container with respect to the printing apparatus (at para. 0085), or
a liquid container side identification section (cartridge side identification member 430; Fig. 11) that prevents erroneous insertion of the liquid container into the printing apparatus and that is fitted to an apparatus side identification section (device side identification member 630; Fig. 9) of the printing apparatus (at para. 0094).
As noted above, claim 3 recites that the specific portion further includes at least any one of the insertion section, the supply section positioning section, or the liquid container side identification section. Under the assumption the specific portion further includes at least the supply section positioning section and the liquid container side identification section, Oya teaches claim 3. Under the assumption the specific portion further includes an insertion section [that partitions an insertion opening section into which a liquid introduction section of the printing apparatus is inserted], Oya fails to teach claim 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Oya as modified by Leiser teaches the liquid container according to claim 3, however Oya does not teach wherein the non-liquid contact section in the adapter is configured as a separate member with respect to another portion of the adapter and wherein the specific portion is configured to be disassembled from the another portion of the adapter.
Leiser further teaches wherein most of the non-liquid contact section in the adapter is configured as a separate member with respect to another portion of the adapter (“Most or all of said interface features may be integrally molded portions of a single molded, monolithic interface structure 105, while for example the key pens 165 and seal 120 may form separate plug-in components”; at para. 0201) and wherein the specific portion is configured to be disassembled from the another portion of the adapter (as understood by the examiner, because the parts are separable, they may also be disassembled; for example, key pens may be disassembled from the base; at para. 0224; for example, each part of the interface structure may be separately manufactured to be assembled; at para. 0279).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the liquid container of Oya to have the non-liquid contact section in the adapter is configured as a separate member with respect to another portion of the adapter wherein the specific portion is configured to be disassembled from the another portion of the adapter for the purpose of re-using parts, as taught by Leiser (at para. 0262).
Regarding claim 6, Oya as modified by Leiser teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, and Oya further teaches wherein the adapter is configured to be disassembled from the liquid accommodation container (“the cartridge 4 has the liquid container 401 and the adapter 402, so that the liquid container 401 can be removed from the adapter 402 and a new liquid container 401 can be attached to the adapter 402, after the liquid has been consumed”; at para. 0114).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oya in view of Leiser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitagawa (US 20100026774 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Oya as modified by Leiser teaches the liquid container according to claim 1, and however Oya does not teach wherein the liquid contact section in the adapter is made of a virgin plastic material.
Leiser teaches wherein most of the adapter is from a material containing recycled plastic (at para. 0191), however other parts of the adapter may be made of a different material (e.g. rigid molded plastics; at para. 0191) and an elastomer material for the liquid contact section (seal 120; at para. 0119; Fig. 9). Because the majority plastic is specified by recycled while the other materials are not specified as recycled, it would be reasonable to presume they are non-recycled materials, i.e. virgin materials, and therefore non-recycled material may be used at the liquid contact section of the adapter.
Kitagawa more specifically teaches a liquid container (ink tank 1; Fig. 6A) wherein a non-liquid contact section is made of a material containing recycled plastic (outer layer 22 does not contact ink and may be formed of recycled resin; at para. 0054) and a liquid contact section is made of a virgin plastic material (inner layer 21 contacts ink and is formed of unused, virgin resin; at para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the liquid container of Oya to have a liquid contact section, such as within the adapter, made of a virgin plastic material for the purpose of preventing leaching from the plastic into the liquid, as taught by Kitagawa (at para. 0054).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiser (US 20200346463 A1) in view of Kitagawa (US 20100026774 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Leiser teaches a liquid container (print liquid supply apparatus 1, 101; Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a liquid accommodation container (container 3, 103; Fig. 1-9); and
an adapter (interface structure 5, 105; Fig. 1-9),
wherein the liquid container includes a liquid contact section (reservoir 33, 133; Fig. 3, 22) that is in contact with a liquid and a non-liquid contact section (support structure 35, 135; Fig. 3, 22) that is not in contact with the liquid,
the liquid accommodation container is formed of a multilayer structure including at least two layers (support structure 35, 135 around/holding reservoir 33, 133; at para. 0094, 0256),
the liquid contact section in the multilayer is made of a virgin plastic material (plastic film walls; at para. 0186; as understood by the examiner, because the majority plastic for the adapter is specified as recycled while the other materials are not specified as recycled, it would be reasonable to presume other materials may be non-recycled materials, i.e. virgin materials),
and the non-liquid contact section in the multilayer is made of a different material (support structure 35 may be made of carton, cellulose based materials, or plastics; at para. 0096; support structure 35 may be made of corrugated cardboard and/or fiberboard; at para. 0101).
However, Leiser does not teach wherein the non-liquid contact section in the multilayer is made of a material containing recycled plastic.
Kitagawa teaches a liquid container (ink tank 1; Fig. 6A) wherein a non-liquid contact section is made of a material containing recycled plastic (outer layer 22 does not contact ink and may be formed of recycled resin; at para. 0054) and a liquid contact section is made of a virgin plastic material (inner layer 21 contacts ink and is formed of unused, virgin resin; at para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid container of Leiser to have a non-liquid contact section made of a material containing recycled plastic and a liquid contact section made of a virgin plastic material for the purpose of preventing leaching from the plastic into the liquid while also improving designability and utilization of recycled materials, as taught by Kitagawa (at para. 0054, 0054).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oya et al. patent publications (JP 2022053798 A and US 11673398 B2, from IDS dated 03/21/2025) are related to Oya used for the rejection of claims 1-6 above.
Koike et al. (US 20250121603 A1), sharing a common assignee with the present application, teaches wherein a liquid-contact section is made of a virgin plastic material and a liquid-non-contact section is made of a material containing recycled plastics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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 X 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.
21 August 2026
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights