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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1 & 9 have been amended and examined as such.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 13 December is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (US 6,068,374) in view of Yanagishita (US 2013/0050328 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, teaches plotter for digital printing [i.e. image forming apparatus], comprising: a main structure (2), arranged to be rested on a support surface (E): a printing head, associated with the main structure (2) and movable along a substantially horizontal transverse direction (X), for a predetermined stroke in alternating and opposite directions (Kurata et al. – Column 5, Lines 3-40 and Figures 3-4, Reference #1100 Ұ, shown below); a transport device (3), arranged to lead a material to be printed forwards along a longitudinal direction (Y) which is substantially horizontal and perpendicular to the transverse direction (X), which comprises a load-bearing frame (32): a connection means (4,5) arranged to allow the coupling and the release of said load- bearing frame (32) with respect to said main structure (2) (Kurata et al. – Column 22, Lines 10-30 and Figure 7, Reference #106, shown below): the transport device (3) is removably associated with the main structure (2) by means of said connection means (4,5); the connection means (4,5) is arranged to assume an operating configuration, in which the load-bearing frame (32) of the transport device (3) is coupled to the main structure and the transport device (3) is connected to the main structure (2) in a substantially rigid manner with respect to direct movements along the longitudinal direction (Y) and with respect to direct movements along the transverse direction (X), and anon-operating configuration, in which the load-bearing frame (32) is released from the main structure (2) and the transport device (3) is movable with respect to the main structure (2) (Kurata et al. – Column 21, Line 29 – Column 22, Line 10 and Figures 4, 6A, 6B, & 7, all shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
366
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
376
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
386
334
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 1, while Kurata et al. teaches a broad example of a connection means and the transport device Yanagishita teaches a digital printer with a printing head which is movable along a substantially horizontal transverse direction (Yanagishita – Figure 1, shown below) and specifically teaches a transport device [i.e. tray] and a connection means [i.e. tray mounting unit] which constrains the tray in the longitudinal and the transversal direction (Yanagishita – Page 3, Paragraphs 40-42 and Figures 1-2, Reference #3(A)3 & #32, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the transport device and connection means of Kurata et al. with the tray and tray mounting unit of Yanagishita in an effort to provide a plotter for digital printing which can be used with a variety of media to be printed on, which recognizes the different types based on the transport device [i.e. tray] while preventing generation of defects in the printing (Yanagishita – Page 1, Paragraphs 2-10).
PNG
media_image6.png
390
484
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
344
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of Kurata et al. and Yanagishita remains as applied above and continues to teach the connection means (4,5) comprises a longitudinal constraint (4), arranged to assume a locking configuration, in which it prevents movements of the transport device (3) with respect to the main structure (2) along the longitudinal direction (Y), and an unlocking configuration, in which it does not prevent movements of the transport device (3) with respect to the main structure (2) along the longitudinal direction (Y) (Kurata et al. – Figure 7, Reference #106 and Yanagishita – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #32, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of Kurata et al. and Yanagishita remains as applied above and continues to teach the longitudinal constraint (4) comprises at least one housing assembly (41), integral with one of the main structure (2) or the transport device, and an engagement assembly (42), integral with the other of the main structure (2) or the transport device (3): the engagement assembly (42) is insertable in the housing assembly (41) in the locking configuration of the longitudinal constraint (4) (Kurata et al. – Figures 8A & 8B, shown below and Yanagishita – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #32, shown above).
PNG
media_image8.png
294
354
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
160
220
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of Kurata et al. and Yanagishita remains as applied above and continues to teach the connection means (4,5) comprises a transverse constraint (5), arranged to assume a locking configuration, in which it prevents movements of the transport device (3) with respect to the main structure (2) along the transverse direction (Y), and an unlocking configuration [i.e. transport device #100 is removed from the slide rails #106], in which it does not prevent movements of the transport device (3) with respect to the main structure (2) along the transverse direction (Y) (Kurata et al. – Figure 7, Reference #106 and Figure 6A, Reference #105, both shown above and Yanagishita – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #32, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of Kurata et al. and Yanagishita remains as applied above and continues to teach the transverse constraint (5) comprises at least a first abutment (51), integral with one of the main structure (2) or the transport device (3), and at least a second abutment (52), integral with the other of the main structure (2) or the transport device (3); in the locking configuration of the transverse constraint (5), the first abutment (51) and the second abutment (52) [i.e. sliders #1350] are in contact with each other and are substantially locked with respect to the direct movements along the transverse direction (X) (Kurata et al. – Figure 7, Reference #106 and Figure 6A, Reference #105, both shown above and Yanagishita – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #32, both shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 8, the combination of Kurata et al. and Yanagishita remains as applied above and continues to teach elastic means [i.e. rubber rollers], interposed between the first abutment (51) and the second abutment (52) (Kurata et al. – Figures 6A & 7, Reference #1351, #105, & #106, both shown above).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of Kurata et al. and Yanagishita remains as applied above and continues to teach at least one portion (30) of the transport device (3) is vertically movable with respect to the main structure (2) [i.e. head gap adjusting mechanism] (Kurata et al. – Column 15, Lines 15-27 and Figures 50-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim [claim 1], but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim [claim 1] and any intervening claims [claims 2-3].
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim [claim 1], but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim [claim 1] and any intervening claims [claims 5-6].
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As related to further dependent claim 4, the prior art of record does not specifically teach the engagement assembly (42) is insertable in the housing assembly (41) by means of a movement comprising a vertical component.
As related to further dependent claim 7, the prior art of record does not specifically teach the first abutment and the second abutment are arranged in contact with each other, in the locking configuration of the transverse constraint, by means of a movement comprising a vertical component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwede et al. (US 5,757,389 A) teaches a printing device having a main structure with a printing head and a transport device arranged to lead a material to be printed. Codos (US 6,755,518 B2) teaches an ink jet printing apparatus with a main structure having a cross member resting on a conveyance means and a transport device. Russ (US 7,390,362 B2) teaches a printer having a main structure and a separate transport device. Albrecht et al. (US 2008/0280028 A1) teaches a digital printing device having a main structure with a print head and a transport device for transporting a material to be printed on. Franco et al. (US 2009/0251714 A1) teaches an image printer having a main structure with a print head and a transport device. Saito (US 2011/0128323 A1) teaches an image forming apparatus having separate printing frames and transport frames. MACLEOD et al. (US 2011/0155010 A1) teaches a printing system with a transporting device and a printhead gap adjustment. Sugimura et al. (US 8,517,496 B2) teaches a printing apparatus having a frame for the printer and a conveyance device frame separate from the printer frame. BERNARD et al. (US 2020/0156365 A1) teaches a printing system with a main structure having a print head and a transport device wherein the main structure and transport devices can be connected and removed from each other.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 EST.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853