DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/22/2026. Applicant traverses on the basis that Examiner has misclassified the inventions listed in the Requirement, and as such no serious burden would be incurred upon examination of all three inventions. While Examiner’s attempt at proper classification of the inventions may have been imprecise, this does not change the fact that all three inventions contained patentably distinct features not contained by the others, the searching of which would be non-overlapping and burdensome. That is, assuming applicable prior art was found for all three inventions, at least some of the prior art for each would be different. The requirement is maintained.
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, 3, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara (2014/0146108) in view of Kohno et al. (2004/0032613) and Hong (2003/0168543).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 12, Ebihara teaches a processing apparatus comprising:
a carriage (fig. 2, item 5);
a carriage mover (fig. 3, item 6) including a motor (fig. 3, item 6) to move the carriage;
a motor controller (fig. 11, item 503) to control the motor;
a power supply (note that there is necessarily a power supply) to apply a second voltage to the motor controller, the second voltage being a normal carriage speed operating voltage ([0092]-[0093], note that a second voltage is necessarily applied before the access cover is opened); and
a transmitter (fig. 11, item 351) to transmit a control signal (fig. 13, S105) for movement of the carriage after a predetermined delay time has elapsed (fig. 13, S107) from when a predetermined control condition is satisfied (fig. 13, S104) while the second voltage is applied to the motor controller and the carriage moves (see fig. 13, note that the routine is started when the carriage moves at normal operating speed);
a housing (fig. 1, item 101) to house the carriage;
a cover (fig. 1, item 104) of the housing that is configured to be openable and closable; and
a brake ([0092]), wherein
the second voltage is a voltage enabling the motor controller to move the carriage at a second speed by the motor, ([0092], standard speed); and
the predetermined control condition includes at least one condition among that the cover is opened (fig. 13, S104, [0090], note that the microswitch being turned off indicates the cover being open) and that an abnormality of the processing apparatus is detected;
wherein the transmitter includes a delay circuit (fig. 13, S107, [0096], note that there is necessarily such a circuit) to transmit the control signal after a predetermined delay time has elapsed from when the predetermined control condition is satisfied (see fig. 13, note that the delay time takes places at S107, and the control signal takes place at S105 only after the delay time is over),
wherein the housing includes the cover and the transmitter includes a detector (fig. 13, S104, microswitch) to detect an opening/closing state of the cover, and when the detector detects that the over is opened, the transmitter transmits the control signal ([0090]).
Ebihara teaches wherein the carriage is totally stopped when the cover is detected as open. Ebihara does not teach only reducing a speed of the carriage when the cover is detected as open. Kohno teaches this. Kohno teaches a first voltage (Kohno, fig. 4, voltage corresponding to first speed v1) that is a voltage enabling the motor controller to move the carriage at a first speed by the motor (see fig. 1), wherein a second speed is greater than the first speed (Kohno, see fig. 4, note that second speed v2 is greater than first speed v1, and the carriage is moved at the faster, second speed when the cover is closed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to reduce the speed of the carriage when the cover was open, as disclosed by Kohno, instead of totally stopping the carriage when the cover was open, as disclosed by Ebihara, because doing so would allow for continuation of standard printer functioning when the cover was open instead of requiring printer functioning to come to a halt, and this would result in increased throughput.
Upon combination of the references, Ebihara’s S105 would instead be a reduction in carriage speed/voltage applied to the carriage motor to the first voltage, and the power supply would operable to apply the first voltage to the motor controller after the predetermined delay time ends at S107.
Ebihara in view of Kohno does not teach the brake controls the motor controller and decelerates the carriage during the predetermined delay time. Hong teaches a motor that operates at a first, faster speed at a higher voltage and a second, lower speed at a lower voltage, wherein when a predetermined condition is detected and the motor is operating at the higher speed, a brake is applied to the motor, and after a predetermined time during which the brake is applied has elapsed, the motor is operated at the second speed, voltage (Hong, [0013], fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the braking scheme disclosed by Hong to the device of Ebihara in view of Kohno because doing so would allow for quicker speed reduction from the first speed to the second speed (Hong, [0028]).
Examiner acknowledges that Hong is directed to a capstan roller for winding a tape cassette, not a printer, as disclosed by Ebihara in view of Kohno. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains Hong’s braking technique would have been obvious to apply to any motor transitioning from a faster speed to a slower speed.
Regarding claim 10, Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the power supply applies the second voltage to the motor controller during the predetermined delay time (Ebihara, see fig. 13).
Regarding claim 11, Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing apparatus is configured or programmed to control the motor controller to cause the carriage to be able to move at the first speed after the predetermined delay time ends (see claim 1 rejection).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arakane et al. (2022/0242126)
Regarding claim 2, Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an ink head (Ebihara, fig. 3, item 11) held by the carriage;
a cleaner (Ebihara, fig. 3, item 30) to clean the ink head in a state where the carriage is moved to a predetermined cleaning position (Ebihara, see fig. 3); and
a mode setter to switch a mode between a low-speed mode and a high-speed mode (note that there is necessarily a mode setter). Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong does not teach
the low-speed mode including a cleaning mode in which the cleaner cleans the ink head, the high-speed mode including a printing mode; wherein
the power supply is operable to apply the first voltage to the motor controller in the low-speed mode, and to apply the second voltage to the motor controller in a state where the control signal is not transmitted in the high-speed mode. Arakane teaches this (Arakane, see fig. 1, Note that the carriage is necessarily in the low-speed mode when it faces cap 70 because it is either stopped or reversing direction. See fig. 6, S55, note that the carriage prints in the high-speed mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a low-speed cleaning mode of the type disclosed by Arakane to the device of Ebihara in view of Kohno because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device in need of improvement to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida et al. (10,498,913).
The prior art combination teaches a single cover with a sensor for detecting a position of the single cover. The prior art does not teach multiple covers. Ishida teaches this (Ishida, col. 4, lines 35-42). It would have been obvious to incorporate multiple covers in the manner disclosed by Ishida in the device disclosed by Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong because doing so would allow access to multiple parts of the interior of the printer thereby allowing for maintenance in hard-to-reach areas.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takano et al. (4,883,944).
Regarding claim 20, Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1. Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong does not teach first and second power supplies and a relay. Takano teaches wherein a power supply includes
a first power supply (Takano, fig. 2, item 15) to generate the first voltage (Takano, fig. 2, item 15);
a second power supply (Takano, fig. 2, item 14) to generate the second voltage; and
a relay (Takano, fig. 2, item Ry3) including a coil (Takano, fig. 2, note relay Ry3 is being taken to be the coil), the relay being operable to connect the second power supply to a load controller while the coil is energized (Takano, fig. 2), and to connect the first power supply to the load controller while the coil is not energized (Takano, see fig. 4, Note that only one of the first and second power supplies is connected to the heater at a given time); and
the transmitter includes:
a third power supply (Takano, fig. 2, Vss) to enable excitation of the coil (Takano, see fig. 2); and
a control circuit (Takano, fig. 19, note that any number of components between Vss and Ry2 could be said to be “between” the two) interposed between the third power supply and the coil; and
a controller (fig. 2, item 13) connected to the coil and the motor controller and configured to control a connection/disconnection of the coil to the third power supply (Takano, fig. 2, note that all components are connected to each other and work together to control each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the power supply scheme disclosed by Takano with the printer device disclosed by Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong because doing so would amount to combining a known power supply scheme with a known device to obtain predictable results. In other words, while Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong teaches driving a load with high and low voltages depending on setting, it does not detail specifics of the circuitry required to drive the load, and thus it would have been obvious to look to Takano for such a teaching. Upon combination, the power supply scheme of Takano would be applied to Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong’s motor (not a heater, obviously).
Upon combination of the references, the resultant device would operate in a manner so as that the controller is configured to detect that the control circuit is shut off and to continue to disconnect the coil and the third power supply until a predetermined cc confirmation process is finished by the controller, even after the predetermined condition is resolved. That is, upon applying the connect/disconnect technique disclosed by Takano to the carriage motor braking device upon opening the cover of Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong, the limitation would be met.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takano and Herald et al. (4,218,643).
Regarding claim 17, Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong teaches the processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the delay circuit includes a capacitor to be charged while the control circuit is connected, and to discharge to the coil when the control circuit is disconnected.
does not teach wherein the power supply includes:
a first power supply to generate the first voltage;
a second power supply to generate the second voltage; and
a relay including a coil and operable to connect the second power supply to the motor controller while the coil is energized, and to connect the first power supply to the motor controller while the coil is not energized;
the transmitter includes:
a third power supply to enable excitation of the coil; and
a control circuit interposed between the third power supply and the coil to be shut off when the predetermined control condition is satisfied. Takano teaches this (see claim 4 rejection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the power supply scheme disclosed by Takano with the printer device disclosed by Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong because doing so would amount to combining a known power supply scheme with a known device to obtain predictable results. In other words, while Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong teaches driving a load with high and low voltages depending on setting, it does not detail specifics of the circuitry required to drive the load, and thus it would have been obvious to look to Takano for such a teaching. Upon combination, the power supply scheme of Takano would be applied to Ebihara in view of Kohno and Hong’s motor (not a heater, obviously).
Ebihara in view of Kohno, Hong and Takano does not teach a capacitor to be charged while the control circuit is connected, and to discharge to the coil when the control circuit is disconnected. Herald teaches this (Herald, col. 5, lines 27-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a discharge capacitor of the type disclosed by Herald to the device disclosed by Ebihara in view of Kohno, Hong and Takano because doing so would allow for energization of the coil providing braking while simultaneously cutting off power from the power source.
Upon combination of the references, the resultant device would meet the limitation: the brake controls the motor controller and decelerates the carriage while the capacitor discharges the coil.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 1 rejection.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebihara in view of Kohno, Hong, Takano and Herald as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, see claim 13 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended, but the amendments fail to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights