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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on March 14, 2024, August 27, 2024 and January 13, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner. Note that several duplicate citations provided in the IDS dated January 13, 2026 have been lined through by the Examiner since they were previously cited (and considered) in the earlier filed IDS documents.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
reference numeral 41E in Figure 24; and
reference numeral 45B-2 in Figure 24.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
a medium transportation device 40A as described in paragraph [00122];
shaft portion 49 as described in paragraphs [00135]-[00139];
reference portion 51 as described in paragraphs [00135] and [00137]; and
ring portion 52 as described in paragraph [00135]
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. 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
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a phase defining unit” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Note the phase defining unit’s structure is described in paragraphs [0051], [0052], and [0293]-[0297] in the specification and shown in Figure 25.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 8-9, 11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. JP 2018-8781 A).
With respect to claim 1, Harada et al. teaches a medium transportation device 280 transporting a medium M onto which liquid is discharged (via printhead 110 described in paragraph [0054] of the English language translation), the medium transportation device comprising:
a first transportation roller pair 280a that nips and transports the medium by means of a first uneven roller 291 of which a surface coming into contact with the medium M is provided with protrusions and recesses 290, 290a and a first facing roller 281 that faces the first uneven roller 291; and
a second transportation roller pair 280b that is a roller pair positioned downstream of the first transportation roller pair 280a in a medium transportation direction (see arrow in Figures 16-18) and that nips and transports the medium M by means of a second uneven roller 291 of which a surface coming into contact with the medium M is provided with protrusions and recesses 290, 290a and a second facing roller 281 that faces the second uneven roller 291, wherein
the first uneven roller 291 comes into contact with the first surface Ma of the medium M (see Figure 18), and
the second uneven roller 291 comes into contact with the second surface Mb of the medium M that is opposite to the first surface Ma (see Figure 17). Particular attention is invited to Figures 1, 6-13, 16-27 and the English language translation of Harada et al.
With respect to claim 2, Harada et al. teaches a position on the medium M with which a protrusion portion 290 of the first uneven roller 291 comes into contact and a position on the medium M a protrusion portion 290 of the second uneven roller 291 comes into contact are different from each other, at least to the extent that the uneven rollers contact the medium on different surfaces of the medium.
With respect to claim 8, Harada et al. teaches the protrusions 290 and recesses 290a provided at the first uneven roller 291 and the second uneven roller 291 are formed by a first protrusion portion row composed of a plurality of protrusion portions 290 disposed along a circumferential direction and a second protrusion portion row that is disposed adjacent to the first protrusion portion row in an axial direction and that is composed of a plurality of protrusion portions 290 disposed along the circumferential direction, and
the plurality of protrusion portions 290 of the first protrusion portion row and the plurality of protrusion portions of the second protrusion portion row are disposed at different positions in the circumferential direction, in that the each of the plurality of protrusions along the circumferential direction is located at a different position. See, for example, Figures 12A, 19, and 24-27 of Harada et al.
With respect to claim 9, Harada et al. teaches the plurality of protrusion portions of the first protrusion portion row and the plurality of protrusion portions of the second protrusion portion row partially overlap with each other in the axial direction, as shown in Figures 12A, 19, and 24-27. Note that since the protrusions of Harada et al. fully overlap with each other in the axial direction, it meets the claim language of partially overlapping as broadly recited.
With respect to claim 11, it is noted that this language is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and the medium is not a positively required element of claim 1. MPEP 2114 (II) states that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” and that “a claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.” Additionally, MPEP 2115 states that “the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Thus, since the device of Harada et al. includes all of the structure as recited and is capable of operating in the manner recited, it meets the claim language. Regardless of that, it is also noted that Harada et al. teaches the provision of duplex printing (i.e. printing on both sides of the sheet) as described in paragraph [0065] of the English language translation and therefore is capable of providing the second surface to be a surface onto which liquid is discharged last and thereby meets the claim language.
With respect to claim 14, Harada et al. teaches a recording apparatus 1 comprising:
a recording unit 100 performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium M (as described in paragraphs [0054]-[0055]); and
the medium transportation device 280 according to claim 1 that transports the medium M on which the recording is performed by the recording unit.
With respect to claim 15, Harada et al. teaches a post-processing apparatus 200, 300 directly or indirectly coupled to a recording apparatus 100 performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium M (as described in paragraphs [0054]-[0055]), the post-processing apparatus comprising:
a post-processing unit 325 performing post-processing on the medium M on which the recording is performed by the recording apparatus 100; and
the medium transportation device 280 according to claim 1 that transports, toward the post-processing unit 325, the medium M on which the recording is performed by the recording apparatus 100.
With respect to claim 16, Harada et al. teaches a relay apparatus 200 that is disposed between a recording apparatus 100 performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium M and a post-processing apparatus 300 performing post-processing on the medium M on which the recording is performed by the recording apparatus and that passes the medium from the recording apparatus 100 to the post-processing apparatus 300, the relay apparatus 200 comprising:
the medium transportation device 280 according to claim 1.
With respect to claim 17, Harada et al. teaches a recording system 1 comprising:
a recording apparatus 100 performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium; and
the post-processing apparatus 200, 300 according to claim 15 that is directly or indirectly coupled to the recording apparatus.
With respect to claim 18, Harada et al. teaches a recording system 1 comprising:
a recording apparatus 100 performing recording by discharging liquid onto a medium;
a post-processing apparatus 300 performing post-processing on the medium M on which the recording is performed by the recording apparatus 100; and
the relay apparatus 200 according to claim 16 that is disposed between the recording apparatus 100 and the post-processing apparatus 300 and that passes the medium M from the recording apparatus 100 to the post-processing apparatus 300.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JP 2018-8781 A) in view of Iesaki (US 2015/0277394 A1).
With respect to claims 3-4, Harada et al. teaches a medium transportation device having all of the structure as recited with the possible exception of including a phase defining unit defining a phase of rotation of the first uneven roller and a phase of rotation of the second uneven roller. However, the provision of a phase defining unit for determining rotation positions of rollers is well known in the art, as exemplified by the teaching of Iesaki. In particular, note that Iesaki teaches the use of a phase alignment sign (i.e., an optical sensor 75) mounted on the frame of a printing device 1 in combination with a rotary encoder disk 71 having phase alignment signs 71A mounted on the conveying roller 31 that allow a user to determine the rotation phase of the roller, as shown in Figures 1 and 3 in particular. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a phase defining unit including phase alignment signs provided at the first uneven roller, the second uneven roller, and the frame in the medium transportation device of Harada et al. to allow for efficient determination of the rotation phases of the rollers and provide better control and synchronization of the transportation roller pairs transporting the medium.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JP 2018-8781 A).
With respect to claim 5, Harada et al. teaches various driving motors for driving the different rollers of the transportation device, as described, for example, in paragraphs [0146] and [0153], but is silent with respect to whether the first uneven roller and the second uneven roller are driven by one drive source. However, the provision of a single drive source or multiple drive sources for controlling conveying rollers is well known in the art. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide any desired rollers (such as the first uneven roller and the second uneven roller) to be driven by a single drive source to allow for a less expensive and less complicated conveying structure.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JP 2018-8781 A) in view of Shigeno et al. (US 8,538,316 B2).
With respect to claims 10 and 12, Harada et al. teaches a medium transportation device having all of the structure as recited with the exception of including a heating units heating at least one of the first uneven roller and the second uneven roller. Shigeno et al. teaches it is well known in the art to include a heating unit in a de-curling roller to improve the de-curling force applied to the medium. See, for example, the roller 20 which includes a heater 60, as described in column 14, lines 11-30 and shown in Figure 16 of Shigeno et al. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a heating unit as taught by Shigeno et al. for heating one or both of the first uneven roller and the second uneven roller in Harada et al. to provide de-curling rollers with adjustable de-curling forces.
With respect to the language in claim 12 regarding the second surface being a surface onto which liquid is discharged last, note the previous comments with respect to this same language recited in claim 11.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (JP 2018-8781 A) in view of Onodera (US 11,697,292 B2).
With respect to claim 13, Harada et al. teaches a medium transportation device as recited with the exception of including a drying unit. Onodera teaches it is well known in the art to have an imaging system including a drying unit disposed upstream from a post-processing unit to more efficiently dry the medium as it is transported to the post-processing unit. See, for example, the dryer 6 provided in the image forming apparatus 100 located upstream of the post-processing apparatus 200 as shown in figure 1 of Onodera. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a drying unit as taught by Onodera in the medium transportation device of Harada et al. to allow for the efficient drying of the medium after printing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 6 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a medium transportation device as recited, in combination with and particularly including, a first drive source rotating the first uneven roller; a second drive source rotating the second uneven roller; a detection unit detecting rotation of the first uneven roller and rotation of the second uneven roller; and a control unit controlling the first drive source and the second drive source, wherein the control unit controls driving of the first drive source and the second drive source such that a position where a protrusion portion of the first uneven roller comes into contact with the medium and a position where a protrusion portion of the second uneven roller comes into contact with the medium are made different from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Akiyama et al. (US 2021/0300066 A1) and Kuo (US 5,519,481) each teach a medium transportation device having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J EVANISKO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853