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: “recording section” and “positioning section” throughout all of the claims.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campillo et al. (2015/0138274) in view of Maud et al. (2,376,161).
Regarding claim 1, Campillo teaches a recording apparatus comprising:
a transport path ([0010]) that is provided in an apparatus main body (fig. 1, item 1) to transport a medium ([0010]);
a recording section (fig. 6, item 100) that is movable in a direction toward and away from the transport path (see figs. 10, 11); and
a rack and pinion mechanism (figs. 10, 11, items 110, 26) that moves the recording section in the direction toward and away from the transport path (see figs. 10, 11), wherein:
the rack and pinion mechanism includes
a rack (figs. 5, 10, item 110) that is provided to the recording section and that is formed along a movement direction (see figs. 10, 11) of the recording section and
a pinion (figs. 5, 10, item 26) that is provided to the apparatus main body (see figs. 10, 11) and that meshes with the rack (see figs. 5, 10, 11),
the recording section is attachable to and detachable from the apparatus main body (compare fig. 5), and
a positioning section (fig. 10, item 130/40) is provided to the recording section and the apparatus main body for positioning, and
the positioning section includes a convex portion (fig. 10, item 130) disposed on one of the recording section and the apparatus main body (see fig. 10), and a slit (fig. 10, item 40) fixed at the apparatus main body (see figs. 1-5) and open upwardly in a direction intersecting the movement direction so that, when the convex portion is inserted downwardly into the slit in the direction intersecting the movement direction, a predefined tooth of the pinion correctly meshes with a predefined groove of the rack when the recording section is returned from a detached state to an attached state (see figs. 5, 10, Note that, if pinion 26 and pinion shaft 25 are mounted on one side frame 12, and after that the lug 130 is inserted into slit 40 as rack 110 is brought into engagement with the pinion in a sideways direction, the spatial limitation is met. Note that, as shown in figure 5 of the prior art, the components can be oriented in any direction, including one where frame 12 faces upward so that the lug 130 is inserted into slit 40 in a downward direction, which would also happen to be intersect the movement direction, which, the hypothetical orientation, would be horizontal. Note that, for the same reasons as the immediate invention, the rack and pinion of the prior art must be aligned such that a predefined groove and predefined tooth correctly mesh so that movements of the recording portion can be closely controlled. That is, if Campillo’s rack and pinion did not mesh at a predefined tooth and a predefined groove, the apparatus would not know where the recording section was in the movement direction. Further, note that the claimed “detached state” and “attached state” have not been defined and could mean any number of things).
While Examiner maintains Campillo inherently teaches wherein the reference tooth and reference groove are predefined, Maud is now incorporated. Maud teaches another possible interpretation of a predefined tooth and a predefined groove (Maud, see fig. 1, Note predefined, first groove of the rack next to index tooth D meshes with predefined tooth on pinion next to large groove on pinion upon attachment of rack and pinion assembly).
Regarding claim 2, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
a guide portion (Campillo, fig. 10, item 50B) disposed on another one of the recording section and the apparatus main body, different from the one of the recording section and apparatus main body, to guide and position the convex portion when returning the recording section to the attached state (Campillo, see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 2, wherein:
the guide portion releases the convex portion from the attached state of the recording section (Campillo, see fig. 10), where the convex portion is guided in a state the rack is able to move by rotation of the pinion.
Regarding claim 4, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: the convex portion and the guide portion are disposed so as to be visible from an upstream side in an attachment direction when the recording section is moved in the attachment direction (Campillo, see fig. 10, Note that this could mean almost anything. Note that the convex portion and guide portion are visible by a user in any number of positions).
Regarding claim 5, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: the rack is disposed on a side surface portion of the recording section in a width direction (Campillo, see fig. 5), which intersects the movement direction of the recording section and the pinion is disposed at a position to mesh with the rack (Campillo, see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 2, wherein: rack and pinion mechanisms and positioning sections are disposed on both side surface portions of the recording section in a width direction, which intersects the movement direction of the recording section (Campillo, see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 2, wherein:
one of the convex portion and the guide portion is integrally formed with a member that forms the rack (Campillo, see fig. 10), and the other of the convex portion and the guide portion is attachable to and detachable from the apparatus main body (Campillo, see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: a second positioning section, which has a same function as the positioning section, is provided to an opposite side of the rack than is the positioning section (Campillo, see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 8, wherein: the second positioning section has a height position different from that of the positioning section (Campillo, see figs. 4, 5, Note that this could mean almost anything. Because each of the positioning sections occupy a range of height positions, values within those ranges can be chosen to meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 8, wherein: second positioning sections are disposed on both side surface portions of the recording section in a width direction, which intersects the movement direction of the recording section (Campillo, see figs. 4, 5).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campillo in view of Maud as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakahata et al. (2020/0377323).
Regarding claim 11, Campillo in view of Maud teaches the recording apparatus according to claim 1. Campillo in view of Maud does not teach a second rack provided to the apparatus main body, wherein the pinion meshes with the rack on one side and with the second rack on another side opposite to the one side with respect to the pinion, and the pinion and the rack simultaneously moved to a same direction with respect to the apparatus main body when the pinion rotates. Nakahata teaches this arrangement (Nakahata, figs. 16, 17, Note two racks on both sides of pinion, wherein the pinion and racks move in the Ya direction together). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the double-rack arrangement of Nakahata for the single-rack arrangement disclosed by Campillo because doing so would allow for shorter racks, thereby allow for a more compact lifting and lowering mechanism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure 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 571-272-10