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 claim(s) 1-4 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.
Claims 1-4 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, examiner is unsure of the cleaning portion surface limitation. Does this limitation clean the printer or the nozzle? What is the “cleaning portion surface” doing?
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the examiner is unsure how the nozzle of a printer would be capable of discharging any or all three types of “a fluid or laser or particle”. It is inherently known that the structure and design of the nozzle and print head would need to be different for discharging a laser as apposed to a print head nozzle that discharges an ink fluid.
Regarding claim 3, the examiner is unsure what the applicant is trying to claim by stating the “recording surface that is scanned or sent out by sub-scanning”. Is the applicant trying to use the term “scanned” in a different context? Is the printer capable of choosing to either scan or send out the recording surface? Does the applicant intend for the invention to have the recording surface scanned or sent out in a different direction from the main scanning direction?
Regarding claim 4, the examiner is unsure what “vacuum” means within claim 4. What would constitute as a vacuum or vacuum environment? Does this limitation imply an absolute vacuum, a partial vacuum, or any environment with a pressure below atmospheric? Furthermore, does the limitation “vacuum part of outer space” further limit the claim or is it just an example? Does the environment need to be in a continuous “vacuum” environment or just when the scanning occur? Lastly, does the “vacuum” have a functional role for the scanning method or may this limitation be treated as a mere environmental condition?
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (JP 2002321345 A)
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a scanning method for an output device (Figure 1 displays a “carriage 20”, including a plurality of “print heads 32”, that is moved to pass and print an image on the “paper P” as described in paragraph [0071]. Furthermore, paragraph [0093] describes a multi-line method being used within the invention.) comprising the steps of:
moving a nozzle of the output device along a main scanning path (Figure 1 displays the “carriages 20” with the “print heads 32” rotating in the same direction as the “main scanning direction” that the “paper P” is conveyed) that defines a continuous, closed loop circulation trajectory path extending over a recording surface and a cleaning portion surface (Figure 1 displays how there are four “carriages 20” that include “print heads 32” that are rotated on a “shaft 11” to rotate in a closed loop over the “platen 5” that supports the “paper P” and the “maintenance unit 50” described in paragraph [0096].),
wherein the scanning path, in sequence, comprises:
the nozzle passing through the recording surface; the nozzle passing through the cleaning portion surface; and the passing through the recording surface again such that the nozzle completes a continuous scanning loop that includes sequential recording, cleaning, and further recording operations (Figure 1 displays how there are four “carriages 20” that include “print heads 32” that are rotated on a “shaft 11” to rotate in a closed loop over the “platen 5” that supports the “paper P” and the “maintenance unit 50” described in paragraph [0096]. Furthermore, paragraph [0017] describes how the invention rotates the plurality of line heads around the rotation support shaft to allow printing, maintenance, and ink replenishment to be performed in a circular orbit.).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches a scanning method of claim 1, Kobayashi further discloses a scanning method of claim 1 further comprising: discharging fluid or laser or particles from the nozzle onto the recording surface when the nozzle passes the recording surface (Paragraph [0071] describes how the ink of the invention is ejected from each “print heads 32” to form an image on the “paper P”.) and discharging fluid or laser or particles from the nozzle when the nozzle passes the cleaning portion surface (Paragraph [0096] describes how the maintenance cycle includes ink suction, saliva ejection, and face wiping of the ejection nozzles.).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches a scanning method of claim 2, Kobayashi further discloses a scanning method of claim 2, wherein the output device comprises one or more nozzles provided in a recording head capable of ejecting fluid or laser or particles (Paragraph [0071] describes how the ink of the invention is ejected from the four “print heads 32” to form an image on the “paper P”.); the recording surface that is scanned or sent out by sub-scanning (Paragraph [0090] describes how the “paper P” is conveyed in the sub-scanning direction, also described as the “printing paper conveyance direction”.); and the cleaning portion surface of a nozzle cleaning part from which the nozzle can eject fluid or laser or particles to perform nozzle cleaning (Figure 1 displays the “maintenance unit 50” that cleans the “print heads 32” by ink suction, saliva ejection, and wiping as described in paragraph [0096].).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Small et al. (US 20180136633 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches a scanning method of claim 3, Masako further discloses in the main scanning path, the nozzle scanning the recording surface
Modified Masako fails to teach the method placed in a vacuum or a vacuum environment of a vacuum part of outer space.
However, Small teaches the method placed in a vacuum or a vacuum environment of a vacuum part of outer space (Paragraph [0006] describes a process of manufacturing products in outer space using a 3D additive printer. Paragraph [0004] emphasizes how the printing process would be in space by disclosing the printing being on a space-based entity such as a spacecraft, a pace station, or a space colony to reduce logistics process.)
Kobayashi and Small are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving printing. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning method taught by Kobayashi to also apply the capability of the method to be used in outer space taught by Small for the purpose of improving the success rate of living in a harsh environment such as outer space and shortening the logistics process of obtaining necessary parts for repair and replacement by printing on a space-based entity (Small, paragraph [0004]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853