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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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, lines 1-3; “an absolute value of a deceleration…different from the absolute value of the second deceleration” is vague and indefinite as it is not clear what “absolute value of a deceleration in control” applicant is referring to!
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0129726).
Regarding claim 1: Nishida discloses a recording apparatus comprising:
a recording unit configured to record an image onto a sheet (Figs. 1 & 5; via printing image head 7 and driver 207 and/or paragraph 0078; “a computer of a system or apparatus…one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium”);
a first conveyance roller configured to convey the sheet in a conveyance direction to the recording unit (Fig. 1; via rollers 3-6 convey sheets 1 to imaging unit 7);
a motor configured to drive the first conveyance roller (Fig. 4; via feeding motor and drive shaft 19 of roller 2); and
a control unit configured to repetitively perform control for accelerating the motor in an acceleration period and then decelerating the motor in a deceleration period, see for example (Fig. 5; via MPU 201 controlling motors 208-210 and 204-206 and/or paragraphs 0037-0038; “feeding motor 206 is switched to low-speed driving…the feeding motor 206 is intermittently driven”),
Nishida discloses the use of different motors, controllers, and conveyance of sheets, but may not be specific about the exact performance of the controller, as claimed as follow,
wherein, the control unit performs a first control in at least a part of the deceleration period in a case where a trailing edge of the sheet in the conveyance direction does not stop and passes in a first predetermined region for a next conveyance and a second control in at least the part of the deceleration period in a case where the trailing edge of the sheet stops in the first predetermined region for the next conveyance. However, it is noted that those claimed limitations are nothing more than an intended use and/or a cause of the claimed motors, control unit, and conveyance mechanisms, which are not given much patentable weight. Further, the specific links and/or arrangements, achievement and duties of each structure such as the motor, controller, and conveying mechanism as long as been suggested by Nishida, would be nothing more than a design choice and/or re-arranging of parts and duties, a matter involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2: where the first predetermined region is a region downstream of the first conveyance roller in the conveyance direction, see for example (Fig. 5; via region downstream of roller 5; paragraph 0036; “conveying the printing sheet by a predetermined amount using the conveyance roller 5”).
Regarding claim 3: wherein the first predetermined region is a region ranging from an upstream of the first conveyance roller to a downstream of the first conveyance roller in the conveyance direction (via the upstream/downstream regions of conveyance roller 5).
Regarding claim 4: wherein, in a case where the trailing edge of the sheet does not stop within the first predetermined region when passing through the first conveyance roller, the control unit performs the first control, see for example (Fig. 5; via 201 and/or paragraphs 0036-0037; “carriage 10 mounting the printhead 7 when the conveyance roller 5 stops…While the conveyance roller 5 stops, the feeding roller 3 also stops. The rotation speed of the feeding roller 3 is lower”; different regions with different speeds).
Regarding claim 5: wherein, in the deceleration period, the first and the second decelerations are average values of deceleration since deceleration starts till the sheet stops, see for example (apographs 0032-0033; “The feeding motor drive 210 drives the feeding motor 206 at low speed…. the feeding motor 206 is switched to high-speed driving” & paragraph 0037; “…the feeding roller 3 also stops”; & paragraph 0045; “the feeding motor 206 is switched to low-speed driving”).
Regarding claim 6: wherein, in the deceleration period, the first and the second decelerations are average values of deceleration since a set speed smaller than a predetermined speed between the acceleration and the deceleration periods is reached till the sheet stops; intended use limitations of the claimed motors.
Regarding claim 7: wherein the control unit causes the first conveyance roller to rotate in a forward direction by applying a first voltage to the motor, and causes the first conveyance roller to rotate in a reverse direction opposite to the forward direction by applying a second voltage different from the first voltage to the motor, and
wherein the control unit changes the polarity of the voltage in a deceleration period in the first control and leaves the polarity of the voltage unchanged in a deceleration period in the second control, intended use limitations of the claimed (controller). Further, it is noted that a use of controller in the imaging apparatus to control and rotate rollers in two different directions in different speeds are old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 9: further comprising a detection unit configured to detect edges of the conveyed sheet in the conveyance direction, wherein a trailing edge position of the sheet is calculated based on a detection result by the detection unit, see for example (Fig. 1; via sheet detection sensor 16).
Regarding claim 10: wherein, in a case where the trailing edge of the sheet is detected by the detection unit, the trailing edge position of the sheet is calculated based on a conveyance amount of the sheet after the detection of the trailing edge of the sheet, and
wherein, in a case where the trailing edge of the sheet is not detected by the detection unit, the trailing edge position of the sheet is calculated based on the conveyance amount of the sheet after the detection of a leading edge of the sheet; see for example (Fig. 1; via sheet detection sensor 16); also appears to be the claimed limitations are more of intended use limitations of the claimed detection unit, not given much patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11: further comprising a second conveyance roller disposed upstream of the first conveyance roller in the conveyance direction (Fig. 1; via 3/4 upstream of 5/6), wherein the control unit makes the absolute value of the second deceleration in the second control of the motor smaller than the absolute value of the first deceleration in the first control of the motor, the first control being performed in a case where the trailing edge of the sheet in the conveyance direction does not stop in a second predetermined region including the second conveyance roller, the second control being performed in a case where the trailing edge of the sheet stops in the second predetermined region, see for example (Figs. 5-6; via control unit 213 and 201 for motors 204-210).
Regarding claim 12: further comprising a recording head configured to discharge ink onto a sheet while moving in a sheet width direction perpendicularly intersecting with the conveyance direction, wherein the control unit alternately performs the recording by the recording head and the conveyance by the first conveyance roller; (paragraph 0024; “an inkjet printhead which prints the printing sheet 1 by discharging ink from the printhead”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0129726) in view of Nagasaki et a. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0063855).
Regarding claim 8: Nishida may not suggest that the control unit controls the motor with a pulse width modulation for changing a pulse duty ratio, wherein the first control includes a period for applying a negative pulse duty ratio, and wherein the second control does not include a period for applying a negative pulse duty ratio. However, Nagasaki discloses similar imaging apparatus with the use of controller to control the pulse ratio, see for example (Figs. 1-2 & apograph 0002; via the voltage generating apparatus for stable controlling voltage for “image forming apparatus” and paragraph 0030; “the duty ratio, and the like of the negative control signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Nishida’s apparatus with the use of controller capable of controlling the pulse ratio and voltage generating apparatus to apply a negative pulse duty ratio, as suggested by Nagasaki, in order to gain more control of the voltage applied to the apparatus in return gaining more control of different stations of the device, (paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 13: wherein an “absolute value of a deceleration in control” of the motor before the second control is different from the absolute value of the second deceleration, see for example (Figs. 5-6; the shown charts of controller mechanism).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art does not suggest the amended claimed limitations of having the control unit performs a first control in at least a part of the deceleration period in a case where a trailing edge of the sheet in the conveyance direction does not stop and passes in a first predetermined region for a next conveyance and a second control in at least the part of the deceleration period in a case where the trailing edge of the sheet stops in the first predetermined region for the next conveyance. An absolute value of a second deceleration in the second control of the motor is smaller than an absolute value of a first deceleration in the first control of the motor. However, as set forth above, the Office believes that the amended and added limitations are more of an intended use of the claimed actual “control unit” as of how and under what conditions the control unit operates!
It has been noted that, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Being that said, the Office believes that since the applied art of Nishida ‘726 discloses all the claimed structures including the control unit, coming up with a specific operation condition and/or uses would be nothing more than a design choice to be made for the controller to operate in response to a position of the trailing edge to be moving or stopped. Since the structural claimed limitations disclosed by the applied art ‘726, coming up with conditions of operating such structures would be nothing more than a choice to be made.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights