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: “support portion” and “transport unit” in claims 1-11.
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.
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, 2, 4-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin et al. (6,665,089) in view of Herrmann et al. (2020/0324558) and Toya (2012/0281037).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Austin teaches a printing apparatus and method comprising:
a transport unit ([0045]) configured to intermittently transport a medium;
a support portion (see fig. 7, note unlabeled support portion) configured to support the medium;
a head ([0045]) configured to perform printing by discharging a liquid onto the medium supported by the support portion, during a period in which the transport of the medium by the transport unit is stopped (see fig. 14);
a carriage ([0056]) at which the head is mounted and that is configured to move relative to the medium; and
a control unit, wherein the control unit:
causes the head to discharge the liquid onto a printing region while moving the carriage, the printing region being a region, of the medium, supported by the support portion, and starts the transport of the medium by the transport unit after the discharge of the liquid by the head is completed and before the carriage stops (see fig. 14, [0056]), and
moves the carriage, following printing an image on the medium, such that the image printed on the medium and the head do not overlap with each other direction above the support portion, when the support portion is viewed in plan view from a position facing the support portion (see fig. 7, note that printing mechanism 212 prints an image on a medium toward the center of the unlabeled conveyance path and then moves further away from that image to the end of the scanning path, where it does not overlap with a printed image, before reversing direction to print a next pass).
Austin does not teach reducing a sucking force applied to a medium disposed on the support portion by a sucking unit during transport of the medium. Herrmann teaches this (Herrmann, [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the medium transport/carriage driving timing scheme disclosed by Austin to the printer of Herrmann because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device in need of improvement to yield predictable results. In other words, applying the timing technique to Herrmann would increase throughput by allowing for simultaneous carriage movement and media transport.
Upon combination of the teachings, the resultant device would have a vacuum platen that sucks print substrates to keep the substrates flat during printing, and after image formation by the printhead, the sucking force would be reduced, and the transport belt would be conveyed with the substrate simultaneous to the carriage being moved away from the image.
Austin in view of Hermann does not teach wherein the transport unit is configured to transport the medium on the support portion in a direction in which the carriage moves, while the head is position to face the medium. Toya teaches wherein a carriage movement direction and a medium transport direction are the same and wherein the head is always facing the medium (Toya, see fig. 1, Note that the head is always facing some part of the medium). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the carriage and transport path disclosed by Austin in view of Hermann in the manner disclosed by Toya because doing so would amount to a simple substitution of one known carriage and transport unit movement scheme for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit: starts a movement of the carriage before the transport of the medium by the transport unit is completed and starts a discharge of the liquid by the head after the transport of the medium by the transport unit is completed (Austin, see fig. 14, [0056], Note that the discharge is only carried out when the carriage moves at a constant velocity).
Regarding claim 4, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the head and the carriage move along an outward path and a return path which is opposite to the outward path (Austin, fig. 7, note that printing element 212 scans along opposing outward and returning paths),
the control unit: performs unidirectional printing where the head discharges the liquid when the carriage moves on one of the outward path and the return path where the head does not discharge the liquid when the carriage moves on an other of the outward path and the return path on the medium by controlling the head and the carriage and causes the head to discharge the liquid when the carriage moves on an outward path (Austin, see fig. 14, [0056], Note that the carriage is capable of printing on either or both of the opposing paths. Note also that even when the carriage ejects liquid to the medium on both of the outward and return paths, there are portions when the carriage is above the medium and portions when the carriage does not face the medium, and thus it can be said the head discharges liquid on either, both or no paths depending on where on the paths the carriage currently is).
Regarding claim 5, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the head and the carriage move along an outward path and a return path which is opposite to the outward path (Austin, fig. 7, note that printing element 212 scans along opposing outward and returning paths)
the control unit: performs unidirectional printing where the head discharges the liquid when the carriage moves on one of the outward path and the return path where the head does not discharge the liquid when the carriage moves on an other of the outward path and the return path on the medium by controlling the head and the carriage and causes the head to discharge the liquid when the carriage moves on a return path (Austin, see fig. 14, [0056], Note that “unidirectional printing” and “return path” have not been defined, and thus any printing on any path, as disclosed by Austin, is being taken to meet the limitation. Note that the carriage is capable of printing on either or both of the opposing paths. Note also that even when the carriage ejects liquid to the medium on both of the outward and return paths, there are portions when the carriage is above the medium and portions when the carriage does not face the medium, and thus it can be said the head discharges liquid on either, both or no paths depending on where on the paths the carriage currently is).
Regarding claim 6, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the head and the carriage are positioned above the support portion and the transport unit,
and transports a portion, of the medium, that passed over the support portion toward below the support portion (Toya, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the head: is a line head configured to simultaneously discharge the liquid across an entire width of the medium and performs the printing on the printing region in a single pass (Toya, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit starts the transport of the medium by the transport unit after the head passed over the printing region and before the carriage stops (Austin, see fig. 14, [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit starts the transport of the medium by the transport unit after the liquid last discharged by the head landed on the medium and before the carriage stops (Austin, see fig. 14, [0056], Note that the discharge is only carried out when the carriage moves at a constant velocity).
Regarding claim 10, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit starts the transport of the medium by the transport unit after the head passed over an image printed on the medium and before the carriage stops (Austin, see fig. 14, [0056], Note that width of the medium corresponds to the constant-velocity portion of the carriage, and the image must be within the width of the medium).
Regarding claim 12, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the medium is transported from the support portion at a downward, inclined angle in relation to a support face of the support portion (Toya, see fig. 1, Note several inclined portions of media feed path).
Regarding claim 15, Austin in view of Herrmann and Toya teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit moves the carriage such that the head overlaps with a drying unit, when the support portion is viewed in the plan view from a position facing the support portion (Toya, see fig. 1, Note drying unit 10, and note that the carriage overlaps with the drying device. Note also that the relation of the carriage and the drying device and the relation of the support portion and plan view are not technically linked. That is, the language that the support portion is viewed in plan view from a position facing the support portion appears to simply be a non-limiting statement at the end of the claim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the device, but the amendment fails 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