DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 13-14, “to transition from the first screen a second screen” should be replaced by -- to transition from the first screen to a second screen --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 14-15, “where the removal paper cassette is detected” should be replaced by – where the removal of the paper cassette is detected --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In lines 8-11, Claim 1 recites “one or more controllers configured to function as: a first detection unit configured to detect removal of the paper cassette; a second detection unit configured to detect insertion of the paper cassette” but the disclosure teaches a single paper cassette insertion/removal sensor 132 that “detects whether or not the paper cassette 105 is inserted into (is mounted on) the main body of the printing apparatus 100” (paragraph 0026) and does not teach two different units - or one or more controllers configured to function as two separate units - to detect removal and insertion of the paper cassette separately. Claims 8 and 9 contain similar limitations and Claims 4, 6, 12-13, and 15 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected the same way.
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, 4, 6, 8-9, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a paper cassette insertion/removal sensor that detects whether or not the paper cassette is inserted into the main body of the printing apparatus. Please note that the controller receives a signal/output from the paper cassette insertion/removal sensor but does not detect removal or insertion of the paper cassette by itself.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP §2111.02 regarding preamble limitations. As currently written, the limitation “capable of displaying a first screen for test printing at the time of initial installation of the printing apparatus” is recited solely in the preamble. Under current practice, language in the preamble may not be given patentable weight if it merely states a purpose or intended use and does not provide a distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Amending the claim to move this limitation to the body of the claim may clarify the scope and ensure the limitation is given patentable weight during examination. The Examiner suggests, for example, reciting (starting in line 1) “A printing apparatus comprising: a display capable of displaying a first screen for test printing at the time of initial installation of the printing apparatus, and a second screen indicating a paper loading guide” and (starting in line 13) “a display control unit configured to cause the display to transition from the first screen to the second screen in a case where amending (…)”, or any other option along those lines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujiwara (US 2021/0037145) in view of Futatsumori (JP 2021054659.)
Regarding claim 1,
Fujiwara discloses a printing apparatus [100 in fig. 1] capable of displaying a first screen for test printing at the time of initial installation of the printing apparatus [please note that a display unit is “capable” of displaying any information as programed; also note that the recitation “capable of displaying a first screen for test printing at the time of initial installation” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02], the printing apparatus comprising:
a display [111 in fig. 1 / 303 in fig. 3; paragraph 0034];
a printhead [not illustrated but mentioned in paragraph 0034] configured to perform the test printing, wherein the test printing is printed using a preset print pattern stored in the printing apparatus [according to the paper size; paragraphs 0093 and 0096];
a paper cassette [404 in fig. 4] configured to store paper to be fed [paragraph 0036]; and
one or more controllers [101 in fig. 1; paragraphs 0031-0033] configured to function as:
a first detection unit [107 in fig. 1; paragraph 0033 teaches that the sensor I/F 107 “is a detection unit for the various sensors provided in the printing apparatus 100”, which would include cover sensor [115 in fig. 1; paragraph 0037]; cover sensor 115 detects when the cover is opened (‘YES’ in step S1402 in fig. 14), indicating the start of a paper loading operation; paragraph 0040 teaches “It is necessary to open the cover 402 (…) in order to load the paper 600”; also see paragraphs 0052, 0059, and 0074];
a second detection unit [107 in fig. 1; paragraphs 0053 and 0074; cover sensor 115 detects when the cover is closed (‘NO’ in step S1402 in fig. 14), indicating the end of a paper loading operation; paragraph 0038 teaches “the cover 402 is closed to complete the loading operation of the paper 600”; please note that the claim recites the one or more controllers being “configured to function as:” (emphasis added) a first detection unit and a second detection unit, so there is no need to have two separate components since the sensor I/F 107 that is part of control unit 101 functions as both];
a display control unit [106 in fig. 1, connected to operation unit 111; paragraph 0033] configured to cause the display to transition from the first screen a second screen indicating a paper loading guide [as seen in figs. 16B, 18, and 21A-21C] in a case where the removal paper cassette is detected in a state where the first screen is displayed [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by “in a case”), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied], wherein the second screen is different from the first screen [the different information can be displayed according to the intended function], and the first screen receives a user instruction to start the test printing [the user gives instructions to start a printing operation, which causes the execution of maintenance recording job start; as seen in fig. 19; para 0093-0097]; and
a control unit [102 in fig. 1] configured to control, when the second screen is displayed, to start the test printing based on detecting the insertion of the paper cassette without the user instruction to start the test printing [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied], and the control unit controls the printing apparatus, if the insertion of the paper cassette is detected in a state where the first screen is displayed, not to start the test printing and to start test the printing based on the user operation to start the test printing [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied (i.e. removal of cassette is detected); also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Fujiwara fails to expressly disclose the first detection unit being configured to detect removal of the paper cassette, and the second detection unit being configured to detect insertion of the paper cassette.
In the same field of endeavor, Futatsumori discloses a printing apparatus comprising:
a display [318 / 320 in fig. 3; paragraph 0026];
a printhead [212 in figs. 2-3] configured to perform the test printing, wherein the test printing is printed using a preset print pattern stored in the printing apparatus;
a paper cassette [201 / 202 in fig. 2] configured to store paper to be fed [paragraph 0016]; and
one or more controllers [301 in fig. 3] configured to function as:
a first detection unit [219 / 220 in fig. 2] configured to detect removal of the paper cassette [paragraphs 0019 and 0025];
a second detection unit [219 / 220 in fig. 2] configured to detect insertion of the paper cassette [paragraphs 0019 and 0025; there’s two sensors that can detect when a paper feed cassette is inserted or removed, so either can be considered the first or the second detection unit and meet the claim as written];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Fujiwara invention to include means for detecting removal and insertion of the paper cassette as taught by Futatsumori for the purpose of improving usability when setting information on the recording medium [paragraph 0006.]
Regarding claim 4,
Fujiwara further discloses the printing apparatus further comprising:
a guide width detection unit [116 in fig. 1] configured to detect a width of a paper loading guide [last two sentences of paragraph 0041; also see paragraph 0056],
wherein at the time of initial installation of the printing apparatus, in a case where the detected width of the paper loading guide matches the width of the paper to be used for printing [‘NO’ in step S1407 in fig. 14], the control unit controls to start printing even if the second screen is not displayed [paragraph 0078; also note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by “in a case”), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 6,
Fujiwara further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to function as:
a third detection unit configured to detect the insertion of the paper cassette has been finished in advance [when the printing apparatus is in a power-off state],
wherein at the time of initial installation of the printing apparatus, in a case where it is detected the insertion of the paper cassette has been finished in advance, the control unit controls to start printing even if the second screen is not displayed [paragraph 0088; as seen in fig. 17, as applied to the Futatsumori reference which teaches paper cassette removal instead of the cover closing since the two are related; also note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by “in a case”), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied; also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 8,
The steps of this control method claim are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Regarding claim 9,
The control method steps executed by a computer including a program stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Regarding claim 12,
Fujiwara further discloses wherein the one or more controllers cause the printing apparatus to display the first screen based on receiving a predetermined user operation in a state where the second screen is displayed [paragraphs 0046, 0072, 0086-0087.]
Regarding claim 13,
Fujiwara further discloses wherein the second screen indicates a procedure of paper loading and the first screen notifies a user to set paper for the test printing [as seen in figs. 20-21C; paragraphs 0093-0097 and 0105.]
Regarding claim 15,
Fujiwara further discloses wherein the test printing is executed for print head positioning [it is implicit and well-known that test printing performed during initial setup will be for head positioning.]
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights