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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 March 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (US 2022/0032638 – hereinafter Mizutani) in view of Kishida et al. (JPH08187871 – hereinafter Kishida.)
Regarding claim 1,
Mizutani discloses an ink replenishment container [63 in fig. 6] for supplying ink to an ink ejection apparatus [21 in fig. 2], the ink replenishment container comprising:
a container body [64 in figs. 6-7] configured to contain the ink [paragraph 0102];
an ink outlet portion [66 in figs. 6-7 (including outlet 65 and appendage 67)] coupled to the container body and including an ink outlet [65 in figs. 6-7] through which the ink flows out [paragraph 0102]; and
a cap [68 in fig. 6] that is attached to the ink outlet portion and covers the ink outlet [paragraph 0102], wherein
at least one of the container body, the ink outlet portion, and the cap is composed of a material having a black-based color [paragraph 0103 recites, “the outer surface of the container appendage 67 in the ink refill container 63 that stores the black ink is colored black”, showing that the composition of the ink outlet portion includes a black-based color; please note that only one option is needed for the limitation to be met as written.]
However, Mizutani fails to expressly disclose wherein the material having a black-based color is a recycled resin.
Kishida discloses an ink container used to contain an ink and supply said ink to an inkjet recording device [paragraph 0001], wherein recycled resin is used to form at least a portion of the outer surface of the ink container [paragraph 0004], and said outer surface may include recycled transparent resin and recycled dark (i.e. opaque) recycled resin [paragraph 0022.]
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 Mizutani invention to include a recycled resin having a dark color to form at least a portion of the outside structure of the ink container as taught by Kishida for the purpose of conserve resources by preventing the need to dispose of used inkjet containers [paragraph 0003.]
Regarding claim 6,
In the obvious combination, Mizutani further discloses wherein the ink outlet portion is composed of a recycled resin material having the black-based color [paragraph 0103, as applied to the Kishida reference.]
Regarding claim 7,
In the obvious combination, Kishida further discloses wherein the ink outlet portion is composed of a recycled resin material having the black-based color and optical transparency [paragraphs 0004 and 0022; as applied to the Mizutani disclosure.]
Regarding claim 8,
In the obvious combination, Kishida further discloses wherein the container body is composed of a recycled resin material having the black-based color [paragraph 0022.]
Regarding claim 9,
In the obvious combination, Kishida further discloses wherein the container body is composed of a recycled resin material having the black-based color and optical transparency [paragraphs 0022; as applied to the Mizutani disclosure.]
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani as modified by Kishida.
Regarding claims 2-5,
Mizutani as modified by Kishida discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the black-based color is an achromatic color having an L* value of 0 or more and less than 50 (claim 2) or less than 10 (claim 3) in an L*a*b* color system in a CIE color system, wherein the cap is composed of a recycled resin material having the black-based color (claims 4 and 5) and optical transparency (claim 5.)
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use an achromatic black-based color having an L* value of 0 or more and less than 50 or 10, and to have a cap composed of a recycled resin material having the black-based color and optical transparency, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One would have been motivated to use an achromatic black-based color having the specified L* value for the purpose of having an ultra-dark black that is stable and prevents degradation, and to use a cap composed of a recycled resin material having the black-based color and optical transparency for the purpose of lowering costs and conserve resources (by using recycled resin) and protecting the ink while allowing visual checks (by having the black-based color and optical transparency.)
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights