Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/617,408

PRINTING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 26, 2024
Examiner
BOELITZ, SAMUEL FREDERICK
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
3 granted / 3 resolved
+32.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -100% lift
Without
With
+-100.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
16
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 3 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims 1, 2, and 5 have been considered but are moot because these claims do invoke 112(f) by using a substitute for the word means coupled with functional language without reciting structure. The applicant has failed to refute this by any meaningful argument or amendment and the claim limitations will continue to be interpreted under 112(f), as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated October 27, 2025. In view of the above reasoning the examiner is not persuaded in any error in the rejections presented below. 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. 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 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 6155728 A) in view of Takagi et al. (US 7036923 B2). Regarding claim 1, Sakaino et al. teaches a transport roller pair configured to transport a printing medium in a transport direction by sandwiching the printing medium between a transport roller (Fig. 2a element 35) and a driven roller (Fig. 2a element 33); an arm unit (Fig. 2a element 31) provided upstream from the transport roller pair in the transport direction, the arm unit being configured to support the driven roller (Col. 5 lines 58-63); a lower surface guide (Fig. 2a element 11) provided upstream from the transport roller pair in the transport direction, the lower surface guide being configured to support the printing medium from below (Fig. 2a); an upper surface guide (Fig. 14A element 41 disposed at a position facing the lower surface guide and spaced apart from the lower surface guide (Fig. 14A), the upper surface guide being configured to form, between the upper surface guide and the lower surface guide, a transport path of the printing medium (Fig. 14A); an upper surface guide pivoting shaft configured to pivotably support the upper surface guide (Fig. 17 element 38); wherein an end portion of the upper surface guide located downstream in the transport direction is located below the arm unit that vertically overlaps the end portion (Fig. 9 elements 41 and 31), and the upper surface guide is configured to pivot in a direction away from the lower surface guide (Fig. 12). Sakaino et al. fails to teach a printing unit configured to form an image by ejecting ink onto the printing medium transported by the transport roller pair. Takagi et al. does teach such a printing unit (element 12 and Col. 6 lines 8-31) that sandwiches a printing medium between 2 units (Fig. 1 elements 71 and 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the printing unit of Takagi et al. in place of the printing unit of Sakaino et al. as a simple substitution of one printing unit for another known in the art to achieve the similar results of recording on a medium. Regarding claim 2, Sakaino et al. and Takagi et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and an urging member (i.e., a spring) (Fig. 9 element 34) configured to urge the upper surface guide to a position where the upper surface guide faces the lower surface guide (Col. 6 lines 1-16). Regarding claim 6, Sakaino et al. and Takagi et al teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Sakaino et al. teaches a plurality of the arm units that are provided side by side along a longitudinal direction of the transport roller (Fig. 9 element 31, Fig. 3 element 21 and Col. 5 lines 58-63) Regarding claim 7, Sakaino et al. and Takagi et al. teach all the elements of claim 6 as stated above and Sakaino et al teaches at least a portion of an end portion of the upper surface guide located downstream in the transport direction is disposed between the plurality of arm units (Fig. 9 and 10 elements 41 and 31). Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 6155728 A) and Takagi et al. (US 7036923 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanka et al. (US 20210178787 A1). Regarding claim 3, Sakaino et al. and Takagi et al teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above, and Sakaino further teaches an exterior portion configured to accommodate the transport roller pair, the printing unit, the arm unit, the lower surface guide, the upper surface guide, and the upper surface guide pivoting shaft inside the exterior portion (Fig. 19 element 2b). However, Sakaino et al. as modified by Takagi et al. fail to teach a first opening and closing portion that is provided at the exterior portion, the first opening and closing portion being configured to open and close a portion of the exterior portion, and the upper surface guide pivoting shaft is covered by the first opening and closing portion. Tanaka et al. teaches it is well known in the art to provide a printer including an exterior portion (Fig. 3 element 4 and paragraph 25) and a first opening and closing portion (Fig. 3 element 1 and paragraph 27) being provided at the exterior portion, the first opening and closing portion being configured to open and close a portion of the exterior portion, and the upper surface guide pivoting shaft is covered by the first opening and closing portion. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide the exterior portion of Sakaino with the first opening and closing portion as taught by Tanaka et al. to provide the printer to have doors in the external cover to allow for access to the interior components to perform maintenance. Regarding claim 4, Sakaino et al, Takagi et al and Tanaka et al teach all the elements of claim 3 as stated above and Tanaka et al. teaches a second opening and closing portion (element 2 and paragraph 27) that is provided at the exterior portion at a position different from a position at which the first opening and closing portion is provided, the second opening and closing portion being configured to open and close a portion of the exterior portion, the second opening and closing portion is configured to cover at least a portion of the upper surface guide in a closed state, and the upper surface guide is accessible from outside the exterior portion in a state where the second opening and closing portion is opened. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second opening portion as taught by Tanaka et al. to the printer of Sakaino et al. as modified by Takagi et al. to provide additional doors in the external cover to allow for alternate access to interior components of the printer to better maintenance its interior components. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaino et al. (US 6155728 A) in view of Takagi et al. (US 7036923 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eiyama et al. (US 20180257892 A1). Regarding claim 5, Sakaino et al as modified by Takagi et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above, but fail to teach a detection unit is provided at the upper surface guide, the detection unit being configured to detect the printing medium and the detection unit is provided pivotable together with the upper surface guide. Eiyama et al teaches a printing device including a detection unit (Fig. 2 element 6 and paragraph 43) being configured to detect the printing medium that is pivotally attached (element 5 and paragraph 27) to a guide surface (element 4 and paragraph 27). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to attach a detection unit as taught by Eiyama et al. to the pivoting upper surface guide of Sakaino et al. as modified by Takagi et al. to provide a device that can detect a jam (Fig. 10 element S116) and be pivoted away to allow a user to remove the jam. 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 SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm. 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. /SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 26, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-100.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 3 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month