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: “unit” and “section” in all 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, 2, 6, 7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (6,129,464) in view of Yatsunami (2013/0229454) and Kudo (2015/0273893).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a controlling system, comprising:
a motor (fig. 1, item 15);
a movable body (fig. 1, item 5) configured to be moved by the motor along a predetermined movement direction (fig. 7, horizontal on page) and configured to execute a predetermined operation for processing a target (fig. 1, item C) during a movement along the predetermined movement direction (see fig. 1);
a single detecting unit (fig. 7, item 21, note that sensor 21 is being taken to be a single “unit”) mounted on the movable body the single detecting unit being configured to detect a first detection target (fig. 7, b-c line of scale 23) and a second detection target (fig. 7, a-d line of scale 23) during the movement of the movable body (cols. 6-7), the first detection target and the second detection target are offset from each other along the predetermined movement direction (see fig. 7), the first detection target and the second detection target being detectable by the single detecting unit moving along the predetermined movement direction (see fig. 7);
a rotation amount information outputting section configured to output rotation amount information indicating a rotation amount of the motor, wherein the rotation amount information outputting section includes an encoder configured to output a pulse each time the motor rotates a predetermined angle, the rotation amount outputting section is configured to count a number of pulses outputted from the encoder and output a count value of the number of pulses as the rotation amount information (col. 6, lines 1-11, note that each division of encoder 23 is necessarily tied to a predetermined amount/angle of motor rotation, and note that note that the divisions are counted as pulses to obtain motor rotation information); and
a controller (fig. 7, item 35/36) configured to execute:
a moving process for moving the movable body by the motor along the predetermined movement direction (see fig. 7);
a rotation amount information obtaining process for obtaining first rotation amount information and second rotation amount information, the first rotation amount information being the rotation amount information outputted from the rotation amount information outputting section only in response to the single detecting unit detecting the first detection target during the movement of the movable body in the moving process, the second rotation amount information being the rotation amount information outputted from the rotation amount information outputting section only in response to the single detecting unit detects the second detection target during the movement of the movable body in the moving process (col. 8, lines 33-62, note that the detailed starting/ending pulses correspond to the first and second detection targets. col. 6, lines 1-11, note that each division of encoder 23 is necessarily tied to a predetermined amount/angle of motor rotation, and note that note that the divisions are counted as pulses to obtain motor rotation information. Note that the first and second detection targets, as defined above, are detected by the sensor unit and associated with motor rotation amount);
a correction value calculating process for calculating a correction value indicating an actual moving distance of the movable body per predetermined rotation amount of the motor, based on the first rotation amount information and the second rotation amount information obtained in the rotation amount information obtaining process and theoretical distance information indicating a design distance between the first detection target and the second detection target (col. 8, lines 49-62, cols. 9-10, lines 12-28); and
a moving distance calculating process for calculating a moving distance of the movable body by using the rotation amount information outputted from the rotation amount information outputting section and the correction value calculated in the correction value calculating process (col. 8, lines 49-62, cols. 9-10, lines 12-28),
the rotation amount information outputting section is configured to count a number of signals outputted from the encoder and output a count value of the number of signals as the rotation amount information, and in the correction value calculating process, the controller is configured to calculate the correction value indicating the actual moving distance of the movable body per one count of the signal (col. 8, lines 49-62, cols. 9-10, lines 12-28),
wherein, in the moving distance calculating process, the controller is configured to calculate a position of the movable body based on a defined position and the calculated moving distance of the movable body from the defined position (col. 8, lines 49-62, cols. 9-10, lines 12-28), and
the controller is configured to further execute a controlling process for controlling the predetermined operation of the movable body based on the position of the movable body calculated in the moving distance calculating process (col. 8, lines 49-62, cols. 9-10, lines 12-28).
Nakamura does not teach wherein the single detecting unit is configured to detect presence or absence of a sheet. Yatsunami teaches this (Yatsunami, see figs. 5-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a sheet detections sensor of the type disclosed by Yatsunami to the device disclosed by Nakamura because doing so would allow for the detection of the presence or absence of a sheet and detection of the width of a sheet. Upon combination, it also would have been obvious to position starting/ending lines of the type disclosed by Nakamura on the platen so as to be read by the sheet sensor added by Yatsunami. The resultant device would have a sensor unit that would detect the presence or absence of a sheet, as disclosed by Yatsunami, while also being able to detect starting/ending lines for position detection of the carriage, as disclosed by Nakamura.
Nakamura in view of Yatsunami does not teach wherein the encoder is a rotary encoder. Kudo teaches such a rotary encoder (Kudo, [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a rotary encoder, of the type disclosed by Kudo, to measure the position of the carriage disclosed by Nakamura instead of the linear encoder disclosed by Nakamura because doing so would amount to substituting one known type of encoder for another to obtain predictable results.
Nakamura in view of Yatsunami also does not teach wherein, in the moving distance calculating process, the controller is configured to calculate the moving distance of the movable body from the defined position by multiplying a change amount of the count value from the predefined position by the correction value calculated in the correction value calculating process. Kudo teaches such a motor pulse correction value application technique (Kudo, [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the motor control correction technique disclosed by Kudo to the device disclosed by Nakamura in view of because doing so would allow for more precise control of the position of the carriage thereby allowing for increased print quality.
Examiner understands Kudo is directed to the correction of motor control for a conveyance roller, not for a print carriage. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains it would have been obvious to apply such a correction technique to any motor that could be subject to error in distance calculation.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo teaches the controlling system according to claim 1, wherein in the correction value calculating process, the controller is configured to calculate the correction value indicating the actual moving distance of the movable body per one count of the pulse (Nakamura, col. 8, lines 49-62, cols. 9-10, lines 12-28, Kudo, [0056], note that this is necessarily how rotary encoders work,).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo teaches the controlling system according to claim 1, wherein the first detection target and the second detection target are provided on a single member (Nakamura, note that, upon combination, the resultant device would have the first and second detection targets on the platen).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo teaches the controlling system according to claim 1, wherein the movable body includes a discharging head configured to discharge ink, and the predetermined operation includes discharging the ink onto a sheet as the target from the discharging head to form an image on the sheet (Nakamura, see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo teaches the controlling system according to claim 7, wherein the targets are the sheet side edges (Nakamura, note that, upon combination, the resultant device would meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo teaches the controlling system according to claim 9, wherein the single detection unit detects the presence or absence of a sheet (Nakamura, note that, upon combination, the resultant device would meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo teaches the controlling system according to claim 1, wherein the rotation amount information outputting section is configured to output the rotation amount information based on the signal outputted from the rotary encoder (Kudo, [0056], Note that any rotary encoder functions in this way).
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo teaches the controlling system according to claim 1, wherein a sheet width is detected (Nakamura, col. 8, lines 49-62, cols. 9-10, lines 12-28).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Honda (2007/0069448).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kubo teaches the controlling system according to claim 2. Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kubo does not teach wherein, in the correction value calculating process, the controller is configured to calculate the correction value by dividing the design distance by an actual count difference, and the actual count difference is a difference between the count indicated by the first rotation amount information and the count indicated by the second rotation amount information. Honda teaches dividing a design distance by a pulse count difference (Honda, [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the division technique disclosed by Honda in the device disclosed by Nakamura in view of Yatsunami and Kudo because doing so would facilitate even more precise location control of the carriage.
Examiner is aware Honda is directed to the movement of media trays and not a print carriage. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains it would have been obvious to apply the technique disclosed by Honda to any motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakamura.
Conclusion
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 MAGALLANEZ 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