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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-23, in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the preprinting exposure unit (1200 and 1200') and the main printing exposure unit (2200 and 2200') comprise a laser generator and a scanning mirror” of claim 7*** and the “preprinting equipment and the main printing equipment are located on and below the metal material” of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
*** Only the exposure unit 1200 is shown in this configuration. The drawings also do not show the two (1200 and 2200) sharing a laser generator and a scanning mirror according to one possible reading (see discussion under 35 U.S.C. 112, below).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it merely consists of a single run-on sentence without regard for grammatical form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). All item numbers in the claims such as ‘100’ in claim 1 and ‘W’ and ‘1300’ of claim 2, etc. should be in parenthesis or removed from the claims.
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“removing an charge” in line 30 should be changed to - - removing a charge - - in claim 2;
“removing an charge” in line 36 should be changed to - - removing a charge - - in claim 3;
“removing an charge” in line 30 should be changed to - - removing a charge - - in claim 4;
“removing an charge” in line 30 should be changed to - - removing a charge - - in claim 5;
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner note to applicant: While the most recent claim set will be acted upon for clarity of record, there was a preliminary amendment on 5 January 2024 that put at least claims 21-30 in better form in accordance with US Practice.
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.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9, and 11-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the term “excellent” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “excellent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2, in lines 32-33, recites “on a rear end of the … photosensitive drum”. This phrasing is problematic because it both indicates that the fixer is on the photosensitive drum, which is inaccurate, and because “a rear end” is a relative term that must be tied to a particular structure, direction or orientation to have a defined meaning. As such, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Claims 3 and 6-12 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.
Claim 3, in lines 48-49, recites “on a rear end of the … transfer belt”. This phrasing is problematic because it both indicates that the fixer is on the photosensitive drum, which is inaccurate, and because “a rear end” is a relative term that must be tied to a particular structure, direction or orientation to have a defined meaning. As such, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 9-13 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.
Claim 4, in lines 4-7, relates that the main printing photosensitive drum settles a toner “to and on the surface of the metal material… while closely contacting a preprinted metal material”. This phrasing is convoluted because it is unclear if the ‘preprinted metal material’ is the same or different from ‘the metal material’. It reads as if it is printing on the metal material while contacting a separate material that is preprinted. The examiner believes the applicant is intending to say that the main printing toner is transferred to the white-toner preprinted surface of the metal material and will treat the claims as such for examination on the merits.
The claim also refers to ‘toner T… to the surface of the metal material’, ‘after the toner T is settled on the surface of the metal material’, and ‘to fix the toner T settled on the surface of the metal material’. These phrasings all seem to indicate that the toner T is deposited directly ON the surface of the metal material, not on the pre-printed areas of the surface of the metal material. The applicant is advised to review whether the claim is intended to preclude printing on the pre-printed white toner image and adjust phrasing accordingly.
In lines 20-24, the phrase appears to be incomplete as the phrase “such that the toner… attached to the surface of the …. drum… to the surface of the metal material”. From context, it appears as though the missing phrase/action should be ‘is transferred to’. As such, the claims will be interpreted as such for examination on the merits.
Claim 4, in lines 32-33, recites “on a rear end of the … photosensitive drum”. This phrasing is problematic because it both indicates that the fixer is on the photosensitive drum, which is inaccurate, and because “a rear end” is a relative term that must be tied to a particular structure, direction or orientation to have a defined meaning. As such, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Claims 5, 6-12 and 14 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.
Claim 5, in lines 4-7, relates that the main printing transfer belt settles a toner “to and on the surface of the metal material… while closely contacting a preprinted metal material”. This phrasing is convoluted because it is unclear if the ‘preprinted metal material’ is the same or different from ‘the metal material’. It reads as if it is printing on the metal material while contacting a separate material that is preprinted. The examiner believes the applicant is intending to say that the main printing toner is transferred to the white-toner preprinted surface of the metal material and will treat the claims as such for examination on the merits.
The claim also refers to ‘toner T… to the surface of the metal material’, ‘after the toner T is settled on the surface of the metal material’, and ‘to fix the toner T settled on the surface of the metal material’. These phrasings all seem to indicate that the toner T is deposited directly ON the surface of the metal material, not on the pre-printed areas of the surface of the metal material. The applicant is advised to review whether the claim is intended to preclude printing on the pre-printed white toner image and adjust phrasing accordingly.
In lines 20-24, the phrase appears to be incomplete as the phrase “such that the toner… attached to the surface of the …. drum… to the surface of the metal material”. From context, it appears as though the missing phrase/action should be ‘is transferred to’. As such, the claims will be interpreted as such for examination on the merits.
Claim 5, in lines 39-40, recites “on a rear end of the … photosensitive drum”. This phrasing is problematic because it both indicates that the fixer is on the photosensitive drum, which is inaccurate, and because “a rear end” is a relative term that must be tied to a particular structure, direction or orientation to have a defined meaning. As such, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Claims 6 and 7 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.
In claim 6 a laser or an LED is defined as “the light energy”. It is unclear how a discrete physical item can be energy. For examination on the merits, the examiner will treat this claim as “is used as the exposure unit” or as “is used to produce the light energy”.
Claim 7 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 7 contains the wording: “the preprinting exposure unit (1200 and 1200') and the main printing exposure unit (2200 and 2200') comprise a laser generator and a scanning mirror”. It is unclear if this is intending to convey that each of 1200 and 2200 contain their own laser generator and scanning mirror or if it is intending to claim that there is one shared laser generator and one shared scanning mirror that is configured to expose both 1200 and 2200 using the singular unit. As such, the Office cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claims 8 and 10 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the transfer belt" in lines 4, 7, 10, and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the remover" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 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 11 recites the limitation "the developer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 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 12 recites the limitation "the fixer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “fused roll” in claim 12 is used by the claim to mean “fuser roll”, “fixing roll”, or “heat[ing/ed] roll,” while there is no common meaning for “fused roll”. While not specifically indefinite in this case, the applicant may benefit from revision to use a term more consistent with those used in the art.
Claim 13 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 13 recites all of the claimed units of the ‘main printing equipment’ of claim 4, and then sets forth that they are “formed in pairs” (line 6). It is unclear what is meant by this. Neither the drawings nor the specification seem to set forth any of the discrete elements being configured as pairs (sets of two). For examination on the merits, the claim will be read as: “are formed as sets”, “are formed as a single [processing/image forming] [unit/station/cartridge]”.
The phrase “each of the main printing developer” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 14 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 14 recites all of the claimed units of the ‘main printing equipment’ of claim 4, and then sets forth that they are “formed in pairs” (line 6). It is unclear what is meant by this. Neither the drawings nor the specification seem to set forth any of the discrete elements being configured as pairs (sets of two). For examination on the merits, the claim will be read as: “are formed as sets”, “are formed as a single [processing/image forming] [unit/station/cartridge]”.
The phrase “each of the main printing developer” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not appear to show the preprinting and main printing equipment “below” the metal material.
Claims 17, and 21-22 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how or by what means, method or structure “a charged surface of the metal material” is obtained.
Claims 18 and 21-22 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the charged surface of the metal material" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how or by what means, method or structure “a charged surface of a preprinting transfer belt” is/would be obtained.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how or by what means, method or structure “the charged surface of the metal material” is/would be obtained.
Claims 19, and 21-23 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how or by what means, method or structure “a charged surface of the metal material” is obtained.
Claims 20 and 21-23 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how or by what means, method or structure “a charged surface of a preprinting transfer belt” is/would be obtained.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how or by what means, method or structure “a charged surface of the metal material” is/would be obtained.
Claim 23 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 23 contains the phrase “are provided in two or more”, which appears to be incomplete. It is unclear what is meant by this phrasing.
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, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595).
Regarding claim 1, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach printing equipment (fig.1) having excellent printing quality, comprising: preprinting equipment (1000 and 1000') (fig.1, #10A) printing a white image (fig.1, with #20W) on a surface of a material 100 (fig.4, #Ta on #9; p.7, final paragraph), which is continuously moving (p.20, final paragraph); and main printing equipment (2000 and 2000') (fig.1, #10B) printing an image on a surface of the material 100 on which the white image is printed (fig.4, #Tb on #Ta on #9).
Regarding claim 15, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach printing equipment wherein the preprinting equipment and the main printing equipment are located on and below the metal material (fig.1, #20-33 on and #35 below).
However, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) fail to teach the use of a metal material which is continuously moving.
Regarding claim 1, Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) teach an image forming apparatus wherein an image is formed on a continuous sheet (fig.1), but also teach that a continuous sheet metal may also be used (col.5, ln.20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the printing media of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) by using a continuous sheet media as in Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) because it is a known modification in the art and can be used to print beverage cans (col.5, ln.20-25).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of the method are met by the apparatus of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) as applied to claim 1 and therefore stands rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602).
Regarding claim 3, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the preprinting equipment 1000' comprises: a preprinting transfer belt 1800' transferring and settling a white toner W attached to a surface of the preprinting transfer belt 1800', to and on the surface of the metal material 100, while closely contacting the metal material 100 to rotate in one direction (fig.1, #31 rotating in direction of arrow); a preprinting photosensitive drum 1300' transferring the white toner W attached to a surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300', to the surface of the preprinting transfer belt 1800', while closely contacting the preprinting transfer belt 1800' to rotate in an opposite direction (fig.1, #21 in #20W rotating in the clockwise direction while #31 rotates in a counterclockwise direction); a preprinting developer 1500' provided on one side of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300' and providing the white toner W to the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300' (#24W); a preprinting photosensitive drum charging unit 1410' charging the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum1300', before the white toner W is provided (fig.1, #22); a preprinting exposure unit 1200' applying light energy to the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300' according to a required image , between the preprinting developer 1500' and the preprinting photosensitive drum charging unit 1410' (fig.1, #23); a preprinting metal material charging unit 1101' charging the surface of the metal material 100 to transfer the white toner W attached to the surface of the preprinting transfer belt 1800', to the surface of the metal material100 (fig.1, #35/#32d); a preprinting remover 1600' removing the white toner W remaining on the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300', after the white toner W is settled on the surface of the metal material 100 (not shown, p.4, 3rd full paragraph); and a preprinting fixer 1700' located on a rear end of the transfer belt 1800', to fix the white toner W settled on the surface of the metal material 100 (fig.1, #5A).
Regarding claim 5, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the main printing equipment 2000' comprises: a main printing transfer belt 2800' transferring and settling a toner T attached to a surface of the main printing transfer belt 2800', to and on the surface of the metal material 100, while closely contacting a preprinted metal material 100 to rotate in one direction (fig.1, #31 in #10B rotating in direction of arrows); a main printing photosensitive drum 2300' transferring the toner T attached to a surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300', to the surface of the main printing transfer belt 2800', while closely contacting the main printing transfer belt 2800' and rotating together with the main printing transfer belt 2800' in an opposite direction (fig.1, #21 in any of #20K-Y rotating in the clockwise direction while #31 rotates in a counterclockwise direction); a main printing developer 2500' provided on one side of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300' and providing the toner T to the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300' (fig.1, any of #24K-Y); a main printing photosensitive drum charging unit 2410' charging the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300', before the toner T is provided (fig.1, #22 in any of #20K-Y); a main printing exposure unit 2200' applying light energy to the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300' according to a required image, between the main printing developer 2500' and the main printing photosensitive drum charging unit 2410' (fig.1, #23 for #20K-Y); a main printing metal material charging unit 2101' charging the surface of the metal material 100 to transfer the toner T attached to the surface of the main printing transfer belt 2800', to the surface of the metal material 100 (fig.1, #35/#32d in #10B); a main printing remover 2600' removing the toner T remaining on the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300', after the toner T is settled on the surface of the metal material 100 (not shown, p.4, 3rd full paragraph); and a main printing fixer 2700' located on a rear end of the main printing transfer belt 2800', to fix the toner T settled on the surface of the metal material 100 (fig.1, #5B).
Regarding claim 6, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein a laser or an LED is used as the light energy (p.4, 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the developer (1500, 1500', 2500, and 2500') comprises a toner container (1520, 1520', 2520, and 2520') and a developing roller (1510, 1510', 2510, and 2510') providing a toner in the toner container to the photosensitive drum (1300, 1300', 2300, and 2300') (fig.1, see unlabeled container and roller in #20W and #20K-Y).
Regarding claim 12, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the fixer (1700, 1700', 2700, and 2700') comprises a fused roll (1710, 1710', 2710, and 2710') and a pressure roll (1720, 1720', 2720, and 2720') (fig.1, #52 and #53 in #5A&B).
Regarding claim 14, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the main printing photosensitive drum, the main printing photosensitive drum charging unit, the main printing photosensitive drum discharging unit, the main printing exposure unit, the main printing developer, and the main printing remover are formed in pairs and are provided as two or more thereof in a traveling direction of the transfer belt 2800', wherein each of the main printing developer provides a toner of a different color (fig.1, #20K, #20C, #20M, #20Y printing in Blk,C,M,Y, respectively).
However, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) fail to teach a photosensitive drum discharging unit removing a charge from the photosensitive drum after the toner is removed.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) teach a printing device with a photosensitive drum (fig.12, #101), a printing remover after the transfer point (fig.12, #120 after #115), and a photosensitive drum discharging unit removing a charge from the photosensitive drum after the toner is removed (fig.12, #102 after #120 and before #103).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) teach a printing device wherein the remover (1600, 1600', 2600, and 2600') comprises a blade (1610, 1610', 2610, and 2610') (fig.12, #122) and a collection bin (1842, 1842', 2842, and 2842') located on a lower end of the blade (fig.12, #120 housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) by using cleaning unit and a discharge unit as in Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) because the cleaning unit configuration is a type known in the art (see fig.12) and in order to discharge the clean surface of the drum to create a uniformly charged surface to prepare for subsequent image forming (para.0100).
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11-13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (OKI Technical Review, Aug.1998) and Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602).
Regarding claim 2, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the preprinting equipment 1000 comprises: a preprinting photosensitive drum 1300 transferring and settling a white toner W attached to a surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300, to and on the surface of the material 100 to rotate in one direction (fig.1, #21 in #20W see arrow direction); a preprinting developer 1500 provided on one side of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300 and providing the white toner W to the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300 (#24W); a preprinting photosensitive drum charging unit 1410 charging the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300, before the white toner W is provided (fig.1, #22); a preprinting exposure unit 1200 applying light energy to the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 300 according to a required image, between the preprinting developer 1500 and the preprinting photosensitive drum charging unit 1410 (fig.1, #23); a preprinting material charging unit 101 charging the surface of the material 100 to transfer the white toner W attached to the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300, to the surface of the metal material 100 (fig.1, #31, #33, #32d, #35); a preprinting remover 1600 removing the white toner W remaining on the surface of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300, after the white toner W is settled on the surface of the metal material 100 (not shown, p.4, 3rd full paragraph); and a preprinting fixer 1700 located on a rear end of the preprinting photosensitive drum 1300, to fix the white toner W settled on the surface of the metal material 100 (fig.1, #5A).
Regarding claim 4, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the main printing equipment 2000 comprises: a main printing photosensitive drum 2300 transferring and settling a toner T attached to a surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300, to and on the surface of the material 100, to rotate in one direction (fig.1, #21 in any of #20K-Y rotating in the clockwise direction); a main printing developer 2500 provided on one side of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300 and providing the toner T to the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300 (fig.1, any of #24K-Y); a main printing photosensitive drum charging unit 2410 charging the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300 before the toner T is provided (fig.1, #22 in any of #20K-Y); a main printing exposure unit 2200 applying light energy to the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300 according to a required image, between the main printing developer 2500 and the main printing photosensitive drum charging unit 2410 (fig.1, #23 for #20K-Y); a main printing material charging unit 101 charging the surface of the material 100 to transfer the white toner W attached to the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 1300, to the surface of the material 100 (fig.1, #31, #33, #32d, #35 in #10B); a main printing remover 2600 removing the toner T remaining on the surface of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300, after the toner T is settled on the surface of the material 100 (not shown, p.4, 3rd full paragraph); and a main printing fixer 2700 located on a rear end of the main printing photosensitive drum 2300, to fix the toner T settled on the surface of the material 100 (fig.1, #5B).
Regarding claim 6, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein a laser or an LED is used as the light energy (p.4, 3rd full paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the developer (1500, 1500', 2500, and 2500') comprises a toner container (1520, 1520', 2520, and 2520') and a developing roller (1510, 1510', 2510, and 2510') providing a toner in the toner container to the photosensitive drum (1300, 1300', 2300, and 2300') (fig.1, see unlabeled container and roller in #20W and #20K-Y).
Regarding claim 12, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the fixer (1700, 1700', 2700, and 2700') comprises a fused roll (1710, 1710', 2710, and 2710') and a pressure roll (1720, 1720', 2720, and 2720') (fig.1, #52 and #53 in #5A&B).
Claim 13, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment wherein the main printing photosensitive drum, the main printing photosensitive drum charging unit, the main printing photosensitive drum discharging unit, the main printing exposure unit, the main printing developer, and the main printing remover are formed in pairs and are provided as two or more thereof in a traveling direction of the metal material 100, and wherein each of the main printing developer provides a toner of a different color (fig.1, see configuration of components in #10B).
However, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) fail to teach a metal material charging unit charging the surface of the metal material to transfer the toner attached to the surface of the photosensitive drum, to the surface of the metal material.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yamamoto et al. (OKI Technical Review, Aug.1998) teach a printing device with either multiple different colored photosensitive drums that transfer toner directly onto a recording material (Table1, Row 1) or a multi-colored system that first transfers from the plurality of drums, sequentially onto an intermediate transfer member (Table 1, Row 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the printing device of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) to use a direct transfer method as taught by Yamamoto et al. (OKI Technical Review, Aug.1998) because it is a known alternative configuration in the art (see Table 1) which can allow for increased throughput when printing colored images (see Table 1, column 2, rows 1&2).
However, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) also fail to teach a photosensitive drum discharging unit removing a charge from the photosensitive drum after the toner is removed.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) teach a printing device with a photosensitive drum (fig.12, #101), a printing remover after the transfer point (fig.12, #120 after #115), and a photosensitive drum discharging unit removing a charge from the photosensitive drum after the toner is removed (fig.12, #102 after #120 and before #103).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) teach a printing device wherein the remover (1600, 1600', 2600, and 2600') comprises a blade (1610, 1610', 2610, and 2610') (fig.12, #122) and a collection bin (1842, 1842', 2842, and 2842') located on a lower end of the blade (fig.12, #120 housing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) by using cleaning unit and a discharge unit as in Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) because the cleaning unit configuration is a type known in the art (see fig.12) and in order to discharge the clean surface of the drum to create a uniformly charged surface to prepare for subsequent image forming (para.0100).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, upon combination, the limitations of the method are met by the apparatus of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (OKI Technical Review, Aug.1998) and Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) as applied to claims 2 and 4, respectively, and therefore stand rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 21, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment method wherein the preprinting fixation operation or the main printing fixation operation is performed by heating to 25 to 400°C (p.16, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment method wherein the preprinting fixation operation or the main printing fixation operation further comprises a pressing operation (p.5, 2nd full paragraph).
Regarding claim 23, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach the printing equipment method wherein the main printing operation requires two or more main printing photosensitive drums when printing using two or more toners, wherein the main printing charging operation, the main printing exposure operation, the main printing development operation, the main printing transfer operation, and the main printing removal operation are provided in two or more, and are performed using each of the main printing photosensitive drums (fig.1, see configuration of components in #10B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either [Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602), as applied to claim 6 above] or [Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (OKI Technical Review, Aug.1998) and Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602), as applied to claim 6 above] and further in view of Morofuji et al. (US 5,018,640).
Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) discloses the exposure unit being a laser, but fails to go into details about the exposure unit.
Regarding claim 7, Morofuji et al. (US 5,018,640) teach a printing device (fig.1) for printing on a metallic sheet (fig.1, #1; col.5, ln.35-44), the device comprising a photosensitive drum (fig.1, #19), a charging device (fig.1, #6), an exposure device (fig.1, #7) generating light energy, when the light energy is the laser (col.5, ln.66), the exposure units comprise a laser generator (fig.1, #11; col.5, ln.66) and a scanning mirror (fig.1, #14; col.5, ln.67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the exposure units of either [Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602), as applied to claim 6 above] or [Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (OKI Technical Review, Aug.1998) and Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602), as applied to claim 6 above] by using the laser generator and scanning mirror as in Morofuji et al. (US 5,018,640) because they are a known configuration in the art (as seen in fig.1) and thus would be an obvious unit to use to one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.
Claims 8, 10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) as applied to claims 3 or 5 above, and further in view of Aiba et al. (US Pub.2013/0223872).
Regarding claim 8, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) teach printing equipment comprising: a transfer belt drive roll (1810' and 2810') driving the transfer belt (1800' and 2800') in a traveling direction (fig.1, one of #32a-d; p.4, 4th paragraph); a transfer belt charging unit (1820' and 2820') charging the transfer belt (1800' and 2800'), before the transfer belt (1800' and 2800') receives the white toner W or the toner T (fig.1, one of #33); a transfer belt toner remover (1840' and 2840') removing the toner T remaining on the transfer belt (1800' and 2800'), after the white toner W or the toner T is transferred to the metal material 100 (fig.1, #36).
However, Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) fail to teach a transfer belt discharging unit discharging the transfer belt, after the white toner W or the toner T is removed and fail to be explicit about the type of belt toner remove.
Regarding claim 8, Aiba et al. (US Pub.2013/0223872) teach printing equipment comprising several photosensitive drums (fig.1, #1Y-K) transferring toner to a sheet via an intermediate transfer belt (fig.1, #5) and further comprising a transfer belt toner remover (fig.1&7, #10), and a transfer belt discharging unit discharging the transfer belt, after the toner is removed (fig.1&7, #28).
Regarding claim 10, Aiba et al. (US Pub.2013/0223872) teach printing equipment wherein the transfer belt toner remover (1840' and 2840') comprises a blade (1841' and 2841') (fig.7, #10) and a collection bin (1842' and 2842') located on a lower end of the blade (fig.7, #33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the belt conditioning configuration of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) by utilizing a discharging unit as in Aiba et al. (US Pub.2013/0223872) in order to electrically discharge any particulate matter than [asses through the cleaning blade in order to lessen contamination (para.0016).
Regarding claim 18, upon combination, the limitations of the method are met by the apparatus of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) as applied to claim 8 according to claim 3 and therefore stands rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 20, upon combination, the limitations of the method are met by the apparatus of Kiuchi et al. (JP Pub.2015-022053) in view of Maess et al. (US 6,201,595) and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub.2009/0060602) as applied to claims 8 according to claim 5 and therefore stands rejected on the same grounds.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA K ROTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2154. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30AM-3:30 PM.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/LKR/
5/1/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights