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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 6 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the liquid receiving section is entirely disposed to the outside of the transport belt in a width direction, making claim 6 – which depends on claim 1 and includes all of its limitations – indefinite since it is not clear how a component that is entirely disposed on one side of the transport belt can also be provided on both sides of said transport belt. Either the liquid receiving section comprises two separate units/sections (and this would need to be included in the claim), or the liquid receiving section comprises a unit on each side joined by a component (e.g. a plate), thus being called a (single) liquid receiving section, but that contradicts amended claim 1, which recites it being entirely disposed on the outside of the transport belt.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyagi (US 2010/0231676.)
Regarding claim 1,
Miyagi discloses a liquid ejection device comprising:
a liquid ejection head [18 in figs. 1-4 and 19] configured to eject a liquid onto a medium [paper sheet 3 in fig. 4; paragraphs 0052-0054];
a transport belt [8 in figs. 1-4 and 19] configured to attract and transport the medium at a position facing the liquid ejection head [paragraphs 0052-0053]; and
a liquid receiving section [47 in fig. 19] that is disposed entirely to the outside of the transport belt in a width direction [fig. 19 is a cross-section view along the line A-A in FIG. 5 and shows that the waste liquid tube is disposed entirely to the outside of the transport belt in the width direction; please note that “a liquid receiving section” may be interpreted multiple ways], which intersects with a transport direction of the medium by the transport belt [as seen in fig. 19], and that forms a liquid receiving surface that receives liquid ejected to a region separated from the medium [paragraph 0076-0078], wherein
the liquid receiving surface inclines downward from a position adjacent to the transport belt, toward the outside in the width direction [as seen in fig. 19, the waste liquid tube inclines downward toward the outside in the width direction.]
Regarding claim 2,
Miyagi further discloses wherein
a position where the liquid receiving surface is adjacent to the transport belt is within a region of the transport belt in a normal direction with respect to an attraction surface where the transport belt attracts the medium [as seen in fig. 19.]
Regarding claim 6,
Miyagi further discloses wherein
the liquid receiving section is provided on both sides of the transport belt in the width direction [claim is indefinite; see 112 Rejection above; also note that the waste liquid tube is part of a bigger component that is disposed on both sides of the transport belt.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3-5,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, further comprising wherein
the liquid receiving section has an auxiliary surface that inclines upward from, as a start point, an edge of the liquid receiving surface at the outside in the width direction, toward the outside in the width direction and
a connecting section where the liquid receiving surface and the auxiliary surface are connected to each other inclines downward toward upstream or toward downstream in the transport direction.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Regarding claim 7-8,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claim 1, further comprising wherein
a belt unit, which includes the transport belt, is configured to be movable in the width direction by receiving power of a drive source and
while a first medium whose width direction size is smaller than a size of the transport belt is being transported, a control section configured to control the drive source controls the drive source to move the transport belt such that one edge of the first medium in the width direction is positioned to the outside of the transport belt.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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