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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-3, 5-7, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iinuma et al. (U.S. 2020/0079096).
Regarding claim 1, Iinuma et al. teaches a tank 16 comprising a frame 34 defining a storage chamber (shown at lead line 38) for storing liquid (ink), and a first opening (at the upper end of 46) that faces in a downward direction (figure 2B) or in a horizontal direction in a state where the tank is attached to a liquid ejection device, and a cover 18 fixed to the frame, the cover covering at least part of the first opening, wherein a strength of the cover I greater than a strength of a film.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation that the cover is fixed by welding is a process limitation in a product claim. It has been held that "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 3, wherein the cover has a protruding part protruding outward (figure 2B).
Regarding claim 5, an outflow port at bottom of 46 allowing liquid stored in the storage chamber to flow to an outside of the storage chamber through the outflow port (paragraph [0030]), wherein the first opening faces in the downward direction (at upper end of 46), wherein the frame and the cover define the storage chamber by the cover covering the at least part of the first opening (figure 2B), wherein the protruding part protrudes in the downward direction, the protruding part having an internal space in communication with the storage chamber (shown at lead line 46; figure 2B), and wherein the outflow port is positioned in the internal space (above 48).
Regarding claim 6, an outflow port (lower end of 46) allowing liquid stored in the storage chamber to flow to an outside of the storage chamber through the outflow port (figure 3B), wherein the first opening faces in the downward direction (at upper end of 46), and wherein the cover 18 has a bottom plate part, the frame and the bottom plate part defining the storage chamber by the bottom plate part covering the at least part of the first opening (figure 3B), and a flat plate part (bottom wall of 34 surrounding 46) extending in the horizontal direction, the flat plate part being positioned further upward than both the outflow port and the bottom plate part.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the cover covers an entirety of the first opening (upper opening of 46; figure 2B).
Regarding claim 14, a tube body 16b providing a communication between the storage chamber and an outside of the tank (figure 6B), the tube body having an opening in communication with the storage chamber at 54b, wherein the frame includes a protruding piece positioned inside the storage chamber, the protruding piece extending from a peripheral portion of the opening of the tube body (figure 6B).
Regarding claim 15, the frame includes an atmospheric communication port at 40, 40a providing a communication between the storage chamber and an outside of the tank (figure 6A), and a protruding piece 54b positioned inside the storage chamber, the protruding piece extending from a peripheral portion of the atmospheric communication port.
Regarding claim 19, the tank further comprises the film at 258.
Regarding claim 20, a liquid ejection device (paragraph [0029]) comprising the tank 16 according to claim 1 (as described above), a head 18 configured to eject liquid stored in the tank, and a tank cover 16 covering the tank, wherein the tank cover includes a fixing portion 54a for positioning a bottle relative to the tank in a state where the bottle is connected to the tank and a cover portion covering at least part of the cover of the tank.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guertin (U.S. 2023/0312158).
Regarding claim 1, Guertin teaches a tank 10 comprising a frame 12 defining a storage chamber (shown at lead line 32; figure 1a) for storing liquid (paragraph [0004), and a first opening (at the lower end of 12, defined by 38) that faces in a downward direction (figure a1) or in a horizontal direction in a state where the tank is attached to a liquid ejection device, and a cover 18 fixed to the frame, the cover 18 covering at least part of the first opening, wherein a strength of the cover is greater than a strength of a film (figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation that the cover is fixed by welding is a process limitation in a product claim. It has been held that "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 8, the tank 10 further comprises the film 22, and wherein the cover 18 is fixed to the frame 12 by the film 22 being welded to both the frame and the cover (paragraph [0063]; figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, the frame includes a first protruding wall (bottom portion of 12, 14; figure 4) protruding from an inner surface of the frame, and wherein the cover is in contact with the first protruding wall (figure 4).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (U.S. 2020/0079096).
Regarding claim 4, Iinuma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the film covering the remaining part of the first opening. Iinuma et al. does teach that it is known to provide films over openings (see elements 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Iinuma et al. with film covering the remaining part of the first opening, as taught by the films 40 of Iinuma et al., in order to seal the opening prior to use to protect the opening.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (U.S. 2020/0079096) in view of Hirai et al. (U.S. 2022/0072865).
Regarding claim 9, Iinuma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the liquid detector. Hirai et al. does teach that it is known to provide a tank with a liquid detector (see paragraph [0248]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Iinuma et al. with a liquid detector, as taught by Hirai et al., in order to detect the amount of liquid in the tank, as disclosed in Hirai et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (U.S. 2020/0079096) in view of Kudo et al. (U.S. 2017/0106664).
Regarding claim 11, Iinuma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first opening facing in the horizontal direction. Kudo et al. does teach that it is known to provide a tank with a first opening facing in the horizontal direction (see element 66 in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Iinuma et al. with the first opening facing in the horizontal direction, as taught by Kudo et al., in order to allow the tank to be used in a device which is designed to receive the liquid in through a horizontally directed port.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (U.S. 2020/0079096) in view of Yokoi (U.S. 2019/0061360).
Regarding claim 12, a base portion at 16b (figure 6A), and a tube body at 54a extending from the base portion, the tube body providing a communication between the storage chamber and an outside of the tank (figure 6B), wherein the frame further defines a second opening 40A, wherein the tube body covers at least part of the second opening (figure 6B), wherein the base portion is fixed to the frame (figure 6B).
Further regarding claim 12, Iinuma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the tube body extending diagonally. Yokoi does teach that it is known to provide a tank with the tube body extending diagonally (see figure 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Iinuma et al. with the tube body extending diagonally, as taught by Yokoi, in order to provide a more vertically compact design.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the second opening faces in an upward direction (figure 6B), and wherein the base portion covers at least part of the second opening (figure 6B).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iinuma et al. (U.S. 2020/0079096) in view of Jones et al. (U.S. 2002/0180847).
Regarding claim 16, the frame further defines a third opening 40 (figure 6A), the tank further comprising a base portion 16b fixed to the frame, the base portion facing the third opening (figure 6B).
Further regarding claim 16, Iinuma et al. discloses the claimed invention except for valve. Jones et al. does teach that it is known to provide a tank with a valve (see element 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Iinuma et al. with the valve, as taught by Jones et al., in order to regulate flow out of the ports.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guertin (U.S. 2023/0312158) in view of Guertin (CA 2,799,800).
Regarding claim 18, Guertin (U.S. 2023/0312158) discloses the claimed invention except for the second protruding wall. Guertin (CA 2,799,800) does teach that it is known to provide a tank with a second protruding wall (see element 18 in figure 25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Guertin (U.S. 2023/0312158) with the second protruding wall, as taught by Guertin (CA 2,799,800), in order to reinforce the bottom of the frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the tank structure.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights