Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/627,497

PRINTING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 05, 2024
Priority
Apr 18, 2023 — JP 2023-068019
Examiner
SEO, JUSTIN
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
535 granted / 651 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
664
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 651 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 12/3/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that multiple applications may need to be filed. This is not found persuasive because the allowance of a linking claim would cause rejoinder of any withdrawn claims that require all the limitations of the allowed linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 2 and 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/3/25. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the last indented clause of claim 1, in light of the specification, is inconsistent with the previous clauses of claim 1. More specifically, the previous clauses of claim 1, in light of para 60-61 of PG-PUB, suggest that the “first conveying unit” includes at least roller 3, fig. 5, but not rollers 5 and 10, and the “second conveying unit” includes at least roller 5, fig. 5, but not rollers 3 and 20. However, the last clause of claim 1, in light of fig. 8A-9C and para 80-89 of PG-PUB, suggests that the “first conveying unit” includes rollers 5 and 10, fig. 8A-9C, but not rollers 3 and 20, and the “second conveying unit” includes at least roller 20, fig. 8A-9C, but not rollers 5 and 10, which is inconsistent with the previous clauses of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 appears to be inconsistent with the written description and drawings. Furthermore, the last clause of claim 1 is inconsistent with fig. 8A-9B and para 80-88, which show that the printing unit 71 is located in the to-be-printed region Ky2 during the operation that removes the overlap between first print medium P1 and second print medium P2. Therefore, the last clause of claim 1 is further inconsistent with the written description and drawings. Dependent claims 3-5 are considered rejected for incorporating defects from rejected parent claim. Regarding claim 10, for the same reasons as for claim 1, the last two indented clauses of claim 10, in light of the specification, are inconsistent with the previous clauses of claim 10, and the last two clauses of claim 10 are further inconsistent with the written description and drawings; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity. Dependent claim 11 is considered rejected for incorporating defects from rejected parent claim. 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 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. Regarding claim 1, as stated above and repeated here, the last indented clause of claim 1, in light of the specification, is inconsistent with the previous clauses of claim 1. More specifically, the previous clauses of claim 1, in light of para 60-61 of PG-PUB, suggest that the “first conveying unit” includes at least roller 3, fig. 5, but not rollers 5 and 10, and the “second conveying unit” includes at least roller 5, fig. 5, but not rollers 3 and 20. However, the last clause of claim 1, in light of fig. 8A-9C and para 80-89 of PG-PUB, suggests that the “first conveying unit” includes rollers 5 and 10, fig. 8A-9C, but not rollers 3 and 20, and the “second conveying unit” includes at least roller 20, fig. 8A-9C, but not rollers 5 and 10, which is inconsistent with the previous clauses of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is unclear. Dependent claims 3-5 are considered rejected for incorporating defects from rejected parent claim. Regarding claim 10, for the same reasons as for claim 1, the last two indented clauses of claim 10, in light of the specification, are inconsistent with the previous clauses of claim 10; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity. Dependent claim 11 is considered rejected for incorporating defects from rejected parent claim. The following reference(s) is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is/are cited for disclosing related limitations to the applicant’s claimed and disclosed invention. US 20180272755 A1 A recording apparatus which is capable of suppressing or avoiding a concern on a defect such as a paper jam, deterioration of recording quality, or the like at the time of performing an overlapping transportation is provided. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN SEO whose telephone number is (571)270-1327. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Ricardo I Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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. /JUSTIN SEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 January 31, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 05, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12611880
PRINTING APPARATUS, METHOD OF CONTROLLING PRINTING APPRATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM CONTAINING COMPUTER-EXECUTABLE INSTRUCTIONS
2y 3m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611860
DRIVE WAVEFORM GENERATION DEVICE, DRIVE WAVEFORM GENERATION METHOD AND PROGRAM, LIQUID JETTING DEVICE, AND PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 6m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611858
LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUS AND PRINT HEAD
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12611868
LIQUID EJECTING DEVICE
2y 4m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12605929
LIQUID EJECTION HEAD
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.6%)
2y 5m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 651 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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