DETAILED ACTION
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 1 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 wherein the pick arm is “coupled to” the service station sled, but from the figures, it does not appear the two are coupled to each other. For example, Figure 3 appear to show the sled move relative to the pick arm to change a position of the pick arm. That is, the pick arm swings freely and rotates about a shaft, which would appear to be the only portion of the pick arm that could be said to be “coupled to” to a component other than the pick arm itself. As shown in Figure 3, the shaft around which the pick arm rotates cannot be coupled to the sled, or the relative movements of the sled and the pick arm shown would not be possible. Thus, while the immediate specification may state that the pick arm is “coupled to” the sled, this does not seem possible.
Given the shown movement, it is not clear how the two are coupled to each other. Clarification is required.
Further, the claim recites “a pick arm” twice. While the intention of the language is understood, the claim is technically indefinite as one could interpret two different pick arms to be recited.
Because claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 4, they are also rejected on this basis.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genta et al. (2021/02211388) in view of Nunokawa et al. (9,199,821).
Regarding claim 1, Genta teaches an image forming apparatus comprising:
a service station sled (fig. 8, item 100) to move in a first direction (fig. 8, Y direction) into a wiper zone at a particular time (fig. 8); and
a print head carriage (fig. 2, item 2) to move in a second direction (fig. 2, X direction) out of the wiper zone at the particular time such that the service station sled and the print head carriage are moving at the particular time, wherein the wiper zone is a specific location in which servicing operations of a print head are performed (see figs. 2, 8, Note that the wiper standby position is shown in fig. 8A, where the wiper is centered on the printhead, and the wiping is completed at fig. 8D, and thus, upon completion of wiping the carriage moves away from the wiper zone while the wiper must reposition itself at the standby position. That is, any specific wiper location between the wiper location in figure 8B and the location in figure 8D is a specific position at which servicing of the printhead is performed. As such, after the wiping direction movement 100 shown figure 8C from the position shown in figure 8B to the position shown in 8D, the carriage necessarily moves back to the print region while the service station sled moves from the position shown in 8D to the position shown in 8A).
Genta does not teach a pick arm lift cam coupled to the service station sled to move in the first direction with the service station sled at the particular time in which the print head carriage moves in the second direction out of the wiper zone to lift a pick arm coupled to the service station sled at the pick arm lift cam. Nunokawa teaches a pick arm lift cam on a sled that moves in the second direction to engages a pick arm cam follower so as to lift a pick arm (Nunokawa, col. 8, lines 11-24, figs. 4, 5, Note pick arm lift cam 17c moves with sled 17 in second direction (vertical on page) to engage and move positions of the pick arm. Note that the sled and pick arm are no less coupled than that shown in Figure 3 of the present application). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the pick arm lift cam disclosed by Nunokawa to the service station sled disclosed by Genta because doing so would allow facilitate the movement of the pick arm via movement of the service station sled, thereby reducing the number of parts required to move the pick arm.
Examiner understands that the Nunokawa’s pick arm lift cam is disposed on a sheet tray rather than a service station sled. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to add such a cam to any tray or sled that moves in the second direction because any such tray or sled could accomplish the same pick arm movement with such a cam.
Regarding claim 2, Genta in view of Nunokawa teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the service station sled moves from a service station sled home position into the wiper zone (Genta, see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Genta in view of Nunokawa teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 2, wherein the print head carriage moves from a print head carriage home position located in the wiper zone to outside of the wiper zone at the particular time during a movement of the service station sled from the service station sled home position into the wiper zone (Genta, see figs. 2, 8, Note that eh wiper standby position is shown in fig. 8A, where the wiper is centered on the printhead, and the wiping is completed at fig. 8D, and thus, upon completion the carriage moves away from the wiper zone while the wiper must reposition itself at its standby position).
Regarding claim 7, Genta in view of Nunokawa teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (Genta, see figs. 2, 8).
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genta in view of Nunokawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stiehler et al (2012/0050430).
Regarding claim 4, Genta in view of Nunokawa teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 1. Genta in view of Nunokawa does not teach the pick arm roller coupled to the pick arm
Regarding claim 5, Genta in view of Nunokawa and Stiehler teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 4, wherein movement of the print head carriage controls power supplied to a motor coupled to the pick arm (Stiehler, [0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Genta in view of Nunokawa and Stiehler teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 4, wherein a distance of travel of the pick arm indicates a print media height (Stiehler, [0048], [0062], Note that the position of the pick roller is a function of the print media height, and the position of the pick arm is a function of the position of the pick roller).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are considered moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) orThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights