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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (US 6,116,723) in view of Hayashi et al. (US 8,419,173).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1: Childers discloses a liquid container LC comprising: a liquid-containing bag 134 configured to contain a liquid; a joining member 158 configured to communicate with the liquid-containing bag 134 and connected to an apparatus that consumes the liquid contained in the liquid-containing bag 134; and a protective member 162/164 configured with a barrier function for suppressing permeation of the liquid contained in the liquid-containing bag 134 and configured to accommodate the liquid-containing bag 134 (see FIG.7A above of Childers).
Childers discloses the claimed invention with the exception of the following limitation that is taught by Hayashi et al.:
Hayashi et al. teaches the provision of including a higher barrier that includes material layers such as an aluminum alloy to prevent the transmission of gas wherein the higher barrier capable of suppressing permeation of the liquid contained in the liquid-containing bag which would increase the shelf life of the stored liquid and prevent the transfer of gas into or out of the bag. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the protective member 162 with an aluminum alloy material as taught by Hayashi et al for the reasons discussed above.
Childers further discloses:
In re claim 2: a material 162 with a barrier function is placed on an inner surface of the protective member 162/164 that faces the liquid containing bag 134 (see FIG.7A above of Childers).
In re claim 4: a plug member PM configured to switch between communication and insulation of the inside and outside of the protective member 162/164 based on pressure inside the protective member 162/164 (see FIG.7A above of Childers).
In re claim 5: the plug member PM is installed at a position that does not interfere with the apparatus in a state accommodated within the apparatus (see FIG.7A above of Childers).
Childers in view of Hayashi et al teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation:
In re claim 6: the protective member has a substantially elliptical cylindrical shape.
To modify the protective member of Childers with a substantially elliptical cylindrical shape as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the protective member and yield only predictable results. Childers specifically states that the protective member (housing) encloses the collapsible bag, which when filled appears to be an elliptical cylindrical shape (see col.5, ll.29-32 of Childers). "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. In this case, matching the shape of the protective member with the bag would require less material and provide an incentive for one skilled in the art to do so.
Furthermore, it should be noted that substantially elliptical cylindrical shaped protective members for ink were notoriously well-known in the art. See Rosback (US 4,568,954) as evidence.
In re claim 7: the protective member 164 of 162/164 is formed of cardboard or paperboard (see col.5, ll.29-32 of Childers).
In re claim 8: the joining member 158 is configured to enable insertion and removal of a hollow needle (24A) and includes a gasket G that reduces liquid leakage from a portion where the hollow needle (24A) is inserted and removed during and after the insertion and removal (see FIG.4 and FIG.7A above of Childers).
In re claim 9: a liquid container LC comprising: a liquid-containing bag 134 configured to contain a liquid; a joining member 158 configured to communicate with the liquid-containing bag 134 and connected to an apparatus that consumes the liquid contained in the liquid-containing bag; a bag part 162 configured to accommodate the liquid-containing bag 134 internally and configured with a barrier function for suppressing permeation of the liquid contained in the liquid-containing bag 134; and a protective member 164 configured to accommodate the liquid-containing bag 134 and the bag part 162, wherein the bag part 162 is fixed to the joining member 158 at one end part 161 in an extending direction ED, and wherein the bag part 162 is fixed to the protective member 164 at a substantially central position CP in the extending direction ED (see FIG.7A above of Childers).
Childers discloses the claimed invention with the exception of the following limitation that is taught by Hayashi et al.:
Hayashi et al. teaches the provision of including a higher barrier that includes material layers such as an aluminum alloy to prevent the transmission of gas wherein the higher barrier capable of suppressing permeation of the liquid contained in the liquid-containing bag which would increase the shelf life of the stored liquid and prevent the transfer of gas into or out of the bag. With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the bag part 162 with an aluminum alloy material as taught by Hayashi et al for the reasons discussed above.
In re claim 10: a plug member PM configured to switch between communication and insulation of the inside and outside of the bag part 162 based on pressure inside the bag part 162 (see FIG.7A above of Childers).
In re claim 11: a plug member PM configured to switch between communication and insulation of the inside and outside of the bag part 162 based on pressure inside the bag part 162, wherein the plug member PM is installed between the joining member and a fixing part FP where the bag part 162 is fixed to the protective member 164 (see FIG.7A above of Childers).
Childers in view of Hayashi et al teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation:
In re claim 12: the protective member has a substantially elliptical cylindrical shape.
To modify the protective member of Childers with a substantially elliptical cylindrical shape as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the protective member and yield only predictable results. Childers specifically states that the protective member (housing) encloses the collapsible bag, which when filled appears to be an elliptical cylindrical shape (see col.5, ll.29-32 of Childers). "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. In this case, matching the shape of the protective member with the bag would require less material and provide an incentive for one skilled in the art to do so.
Furthermore, it should be noted that substantially elliptical cylindrical shaped protective members for ink were notoriously well-known in the art. See Rosback (US 4,568,954) as evidence.
In re claim 13: the protective member 164 is formed of cardboard or paperboard (see col.5, ll.29-32 of Childers).
In re claim 14: the joining member 158 is configured to enable insertion and removal of a hollow needle (24A) and includes a gasket G that reduces liquid leakage a portion where the hollow needle (24A) is inserted and removed during and after the insertion and removal (see FIG.4 and FIG.7A above of Childers).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (US 6,116,723) in view of Hayashi et al. (US 8,419,173) and in further view of Lasson (US 2004/0149381). Childers in view of Hayashi et al teaches the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation that is taught by Lasson:
In re claim 3: Lasson teaches the provision of a protective member 2 made of cardboard that has aluminum foil laminated on the inner surface along with a plastic coating in order to have improve rupture resistance of the protective member and prevent stored liquids to be absorbed into the carboard base layer (see [0005]-[0006] of Lasson). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the protective member of Childers in view of Hayashi et al with an aluminum foil layer and a plastic layer as taught by Lasson for the reasons discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 EST.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights