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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamijo et al. (US 2016/0039222).
Regarding claim 1, Kamijo et al teaches a liquid ejecting device (figs.1-6) comprising:
a transport unit (13 including 13a,13b figs.1-6) configured to transport a medium (P) in a transport direction (Y) while nipping the medium between a first roller (13a) and a second roller (13b) configured to press the medium toward the first roller (13a);
an ejecting unit (17 figs.1-6) configured to eject a liquid onto the medium (P) at a position downstream of the transport unit in the transport direction;
a receiving groove portion (201 including 205 and 206 figs.2-6) facing the ejecting unit (17) in a height direction intersecting the transport direction (Y);
a guide portion (16,20c,20a in figs.1,2) configured to guide the medium (P) at a position downstream of the ejecting unit (17) in the transport direction (Y); and
a support portion (medium support portion of 20 upstream of 201 figs.2-6) configured to support the medium (P) at a position upstream of the receiving groove portion (201) and downstream of the transport unit (13) in the transport direction (Y),
wherein the guide portion is a guide roller (16 fig.1) that causes the transported medium (P) to change a direction of transportation (Y fig.1).
Regarding claim 2, Kamijo et al further teaches wherein the support portion (medium support portion of 20 upstream of 201 figs.2-6) is configured to support the medium at a same height as the guide portion (20a) in the height direction.
Regarding claim 4, Kamijo et al further teaches wherein the first roller (13a figs.1-6) supports the medium (P) at the same height as the guide portion (20a) in the height direction.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamuro et al. (US 2018/0117907) in view of Imamura (US 2015/0103124).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamuro et al teaches a liquid ejecting device (figs.1-5) comprising:
a transport unit (401,400 figs.2,1) configured to transport a medium (P) in a transport direction (Y) while nipping the medium between a first roller (400) and a second roller (401) configured to press the medium toward the first roller (400);
an ejecting unit (101,102 figs.2,1) configured to eject a liquid onto the medium (P) at a position downstream of the transport unit (401,402) in the transport direction (Y);
a receiving groove portion (receiving portion of 300 above 301 and containing 301 in fig.2) facing the ejecting unit (101,102) in a height direction intersecting the transport direction (Y);
a guide portion (402 figs.2,1) configured to guide the medium at a position downstream of the ejecting unit (101,102) in the transport direction (Y); and
a support portion (upper portion of 300 upstream of 102/301 and downstream of 400 in fig.2) configured to support the medium (P) at a position upstream of the receiving groove portion (receiving portion of 300 above 301 and containing 301 in fig.2) and downstream of the transport unit (401,402) in the transport direction (Y),
wherein the guide portion is a guide roller (402 figs.2,1 is guide roller).
Yamamuro et al does not explicitly teaches wherein the guide portion is arranged to causes the transported medium to change a direction of transportation.
However, Imamura teaches similar liquid ejecting device (fig.1) including: a guide portion (34 fig.1) configured to guide a medium (S) at a position downstream of the ejecting unit (36U) in the transport direction (Ds), wherein the guide portion (34 fig.1) is a guide roller that causes the transported medium (S) to change a direction of transportation (Ds)(fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the guide portion of Yamamuro et al as such based on the teachings of Imamura for instance to be able to feed the medium to receiving element such as reeling portion positioned at lowered position in a printer.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamuro et al as modified by Imamura further teaches wherein the support portion (upper portion of 300 upstream of 102/301 and downstream of 400 in fig.2 of Yamamuro et al) is configured to support the medium at a same height as the guide portion (402 figs.2,1) in the height direction.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamuro et al as modified by Imamura further teaches wherein the first roller (400 figs.2,1 of Yamamuro et al) supports the medium (P) at the same height as the guide portion (402) in the height direction.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamuro et al as modified by Imamura further in view of Kamijo et al. (US 2016/0039222) and/or Terada (US 2007/0145678).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamuro et al as modified by Imamura teaches the claimed invention including wherein a position of an axial center of the second roller (401 figs.2,1 of Yamamuro et al) disposed on the axial center of the first roller (400 of Yamamuro et al).
Yamamuro et al as modified above does not explicitly teaches wherein a position of an axial center of the second roller in the transport direction is disposed at a position downstream of a position of an axial center of the first roller in the transport direction.
However, Kamijo et al teaches similar liquid ejecting device (fig.1) including: a first roller (13a figs.2,4-6) and a second roller (13b), wherein a position of an axial center of the second roller (13b) in the transport direction (Y) is disposed at a position downstream of a position of an axial center of the first roller (13a) in the transport direction.
Similarly, Terada teaches similar liquid ejecting device (figs.1,3,4) including: a first roller (106 fig.1; 88 figs.5,14,19) and a second roller (105 fig.1; 87 figs.5,14,19), wherein a position of an axial center of the second roller (105 fig.1; 87 figs.5,14,19) in the transport direction is disposed at a position downstream of a position of an axial center of the first roller (106 fig.1; 88 figs.5,14,19) in the transport direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the rollers of Yamamuro et al as such based on the teachings of Kamijo et al and/or Terada for instance to better press the medium onto the platen thereby suppressing floating of medium above the platen which could touch the ejection face of the printhead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 are allowed.
Claims 5 and 6 are 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.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 with respect to the new limitations in the amended claim 1. Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to the above new rejections of claim 1.
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 HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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 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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853