DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “post-processing part” and “reception part” in claim 1.
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.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “the binding process,” but because claim 1 only requires one process of a plurality of processes that includes a binding process, there is a possibility that no binding process is actually performed in claim 1, and thus to recite the binding process in claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “the drying process,” but because claim 1 only requires one process of a plurality of processes that includes a drying process, there is a possibility that no drying process is actually performed in claim 1, and thus to recite the drying process in claim 6 is indefinite.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “the punching process,” but because claim 1 only requires one process of a plurality of processes that includes a punching process, there is a possibility that no punching process is actually performed in claim 1, and thus to recite the punching process in claim 7 is indefinite.
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, 3-5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara et al. (2023/0034963) in view of Bakodledis (2003/0127789), official notice and Hosomizo et al. (2021/0357712).
Regarding claim 1, Ogasawara teaches a post-processing device for processing a medium received from a recording device comprising:
a controller configured to perform control of a processing ([0099]),
the controller is configured to acquire, as information of the recording device, first information configured to determine that a recording type of the recording device is an ink-jet type, and second information configured to determine that the recording type of the recording device is a laser type ([0069], [0099]), and
the controller is configured to acquire from the recording device the information of the recording device, to perform processing based on a first setting when the information of the recording device includes the first information configured to determine that the recording type is the ink-jet type, and to perform control of processing based on a second setting different from the first setting when the information of the recording device includes the second information configured to determine that the recording type is the laser type ([0099]),
a processing part ([0097], printhead) configured to perform processing on the medium ([0097]),
a reception part configured to receive a medium on which recording was performed by a recording device (note that there is necessarily a discharge area),
a controller configured to perform control of at least the processing based on whether recording type is an ink-jet type or a laser type ([0099]-[0103]).
Ogasawara does not teach
a post-processing part configured to perform post-processing on the medium received by the reception part, the post-processing part being configured to perform on the medium a shift process. Bakodledis teaches a post-processing stacking device for shifting media that has been printed onto a reception part into a stacked formation (Bakodledis, [0016]-[0017], Note both that Bakodlelis teaches a shifting process and also that “shifting process” has not been defined in the claim in any way whatsoever). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the post-processing stacking device and reception part disclosed by Bakodledis to the device disclosed by Ogasawara because doing so would amount to combining a known printing device with a known reception part/post processing device to obtain predictable results.
Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that inkjet printing was more susceptible to smearing than laser printing. Because of this, one of skill would have known that stacking sheets printed with ink would smear while stacking sheets printed electrophotographically would not. Thus, one of skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to use post-processing applications to ensure proper drying/prevent smearing when inkjet printing was employed as opposed to when laser printing was employed.
Upon combination of the above teachings, the resultant device would have a post-processing controller configured to perform control of at least the post-processing based on whether recording type is an ink-jet type or a laser type. That is, when Ogasawara’s controller detected that inkjet printing was to take place, as opposed to laser printing, the number of sheets allowed to be stacked would be controlled with the post-processing device disclosed by Bakodledis so as to prevent smearing of ink printed on the sheets. On the other hand, when Ogasawara’s controller determined that laser printing was to take place, the number of sheets to be stacked would not be limited as not smearing was likely. Note that the operations of all of the following dependent claims intended to facilitate drying and prevent smearing of ink are being considered to have been obvious to employ when the controller determined that inkjet printing/the first information was being carried out.
Upon combination, the arrangement of Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis would have a reception part disposed in a transport path of the medium from the recording device to the post-processing device. That is, given the recording unit of Ogasawara and the stacker of Bakodledis, absolutely any part of the larger system between the recording unit and the stacker could be said to be a “reception part.”
Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis and official notice does not teach wherein the post-processing controller is configured to acquire model information of the recording device and is configured to determine a model of the recording device as the information of the recording device, and the post-processing controller being configured to perform the control of at least the post-processing based on the that is acquired by the post-processing controller. Hosomizo teaches wherein a post-process auxiliary program obtains a printer model of a connected printer and bases a post-processing process on the model number of the printer (Hosomizo, [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply a technique where a post-processing controller obtains model information about the printer with which a post-processing device is connected, as disclosed by Hosomizo, to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis and official notice because doing so would allow for tailoring of a specific post-processing for a specific printer model, thereby optimizing the post-processing.
Regarding claim 3, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, comprising
a placement part on which the medium after the post- processing is placeable; wherein
the controller is configured to, when the first information is acquired, reduce an upper limit of the number of sheets of the medium placeable on the placement part as compared with a case in which the second information is acquired (Bakodledis, [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, comprising:
a processing tray (Bakodledis, fig. 1, item 1) on which the medium to be subjected to the post-processing is loadable; and
a rotary transport part Bakodledis, fig. 1, item 5) configured to transport the medium loaded on the processing tray by rotating in contact with the medium loaded on the processing tray; wherein
the controller is configured to, when the first information is acquired, increase an amount of rotation of the rotary transport part as compared with a case in which the second information is acquired (Bakodledis, [0016]-[0017], Note that rotary transport part 5 would rotate more frequently so as to keep the stack shorter when an inkjet printing was carried out than when a laser printing was carried out).
Regarding claim 5, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, comprising:
a processing tray on which the medium to be subjected to the post-processing is loadable; wherein
the controller is configured to, when the first information is acquired as information configured to determine a reception interval at which the medium is receivable by the reception part, transmit, to the recording device, information configured to determine a longer interval than in a case in which the second information is acquired, and
the controller is configured to, when the first information is acquired, increase a processing interval of the post- processing as compared with a case in which the second information is acquired (Bakodledis, [0016]-[0017], Note that the interval between rotations of roller 5 would be longer during laser printing than during inkjet printing because the stack would need to be kept shorter during inkjet printing).
Regarding claim 11, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to acquire any one of the first information and the second information when power of the post-processing device is turned on (Ogasawara, ([0099]-[0103], Note that the power must necessarily be on for the information to be acquired).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirayama (2021/0316558).
Regarding claim 2, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach wherein the post-processing part is configured to perform a binding process that binds a plurality of sheets of the medium as the post-processing, and the controller is configured to, when the first information is acquired, reduce an upper limit of the number of sheets of the medium to be bound by the binding process as compared with a case in which the second information is acquired. Hirayama teaches a post-processing binding (Hirayama, [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a binding part, as disclosed by Hirayama, to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo because doing so would allow for binding of sheets into packets.
Upon application of such a binder, using the same smearing logic disclosed by Bakodledis, binding during inkjet printing would need to take place more frequently so as to limit the number of sheets in any particular binding, thereby reducing smearing.
Regarding claim 6, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach a drying mechanism configured to dry the medium transported to the post-processing part, wherein the controller is configured to dry the medium transported to the post-processing part with the drying mechanism when the first information is acquired, and is configured not to dry the medium transported to the post-processing part with the drying mechanism when the second information is acquired. Hirayama teaches a post-processing drying mechanism (Hirayama, [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a drying part, as disclosed by Hirayama, to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis and official notice because doing so would allow drying of ink on the printed media, thereby reducing smearing.
Regarding claim 7, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach
the post-processing part is configured to perform a punching process of punching the medium as the post-processing, and
the controller is configured to, when the first information is acquired, perform at least one of control of increasing a punching speed of the punching process and control of increasing the number of punching times of the punching process as compared with a case in which the second information is acquired. Hirayama teaches a post-processing punching (Hirayama, [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a punching part, as disclosed by Hirayama, to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo because doing so would allow for punching of sheets.
Upon application of such a punching device, using the same smearing logic disclosed by Bakodledis, punching during inkjet printing would need to take place more frequently so as to limit the number of sheets in any particular punching, thereby reducing smearing.
Regarding claim 9, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach
a first transport path configured to transport the medium before the post-processing is performed; and
a second transport path configured to transport the medium before the post-processing is performed; wherein
the first transport path has a longer path length than the second transport path, and
the controller is configured to transport the medium before the post-processing is performed to the first transport path when the first information is acquired and is configured to transport the medium before the post-processing is performed to the second transport path when the second information is acquired. Hirayama teaches two transport paths (Hirayama, see fig. 1, Note first, longer transport path 22 passing through dryer 6 and second, shorter transport path 23 not passing through a dryer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add transport paths disclosed by Hirayama to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo because doing so would allow drying of sheets printed with ink and bypassing of the dryer for sheets printed by laser printing.
Regarding claim 14, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach wherein the post-processing part is configured to perform a punching process of punching the medium as the post-processing, and the controller is configured to transmit, to the recording device, information configured to determine restriction of recording in at least a punching region on the medium when the first information is acquired. Hirayama teaches a post-processing punching (Hirayama, [0106]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a punching part, as disclosed by Hirayama, to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo because doing so would allow for punching of sheets.
Upon application of such a punching device, using the same smearing logic disclosed by Bakodledis, punching during inkjet printing would need to take place more frequently so as to limit the number of sheets in any particular punching, thereby reducing smearing.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kano et al. (11,609,525).
Regarding claim 8, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach
a processing tray on which the medium to be subjected to the post-processing is loadable; and
an air blowing part configured to blow air from above the processing tray to the medium loaded on the processing tray; wherein
the controller is configured to cause the air blowing part to blow air when the first information is acquired, and is configured not to cause the air blowing part to blow air when the second information is acquired. Kano teaches this (Kano, see fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the fan and tray assembly disclosed by Kano to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo because doing so would allow for drying of any residual wet ink after discharge of sheets to the tray.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muro et al. (2011/0279832).
Regarding claim 10, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach a waiting part configured to cause the medium before the post-processing is performed to wait;
wherein the controller is configured to cause the medium before the post-processing is performed to wait in the waiting part when the first information is acquired and is configured not to cause the medium before the post-processing is performed to wait in the waiting part when the second information is acquired. Muro teaches this (Muro, [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a waiting part to determining wait time based on and ink printing density, as disclosed by Muro, to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo because doing so would ensure proper drying of ink in between processing operations.
Regarding claim 13, Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo teaches the post-processing device according to claim 1. Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo does not teach wherein the controller is configured to acquire recording density information configured to determine a recording density on the medium by the recording device as the information of the recording device when the first information is acquired, and is configured not to acquire the recording density information when the second information is acquired, and
the controller is configured to perform the control of at least the post-processing based on the acquired recording density information when the first information is acquired. Muro teaches this (Muro, [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a waiting part to determining wait time based on and ink printing density, as disclosed by Muro, to the device disclosed by Ogasawara in view of Bakodledis, official notice and Hosomizo because doing so would ensure proper drying of ink in between processing operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the device, 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, 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853