DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the difference measured when the endless belt is running straightly” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the up-down direction” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 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. The claim recites “an inclination angle of the second detection mark and the predetermined distance are set such that the difference monotonically changes in accordance with an increase or decrease in a shift amount of the endless belt in the width direction.” It is not understood exactly what this is intended to mean. Examiner cannot find any support in the specification for any variant of a “monotonic” correlation between the difference in detection timings and the amount of shift in the belt width direction. Clarification is required.
Because claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takeuchi et al. (2011/0063353) in view of Kudo et al. (2010/0232819), Enomoto (2009/0220873) and Woo et al. (2014/0212186).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi teaches an image forming apparatus comprising:
a recording head (fig. 15, item 51) including a plurality of nozzles (fig. 15, items 102) that each eject a liquid droplet to a recording medium, the nozzles being arranged in an array (fig. 15, note array of nozzles);
a transport device (fig. 15, item 43) including an endless belt (fig. 15, item 43) that transports the recording medium (fig. 15, item P) toward an image forming position (fig. 15, position under head 51) where the recording head forms an image;
a plurality of through holes (fig. 15, items 201) formed in the endless belt, to be used for a flushing operation ([0056]);
a liquid droplet receptacle ([0056]-[0059], note that such a receptacle is necessarily under the belt) that receives a flushing liquid droplet, which has been ejected from the nozzle and passed through the through hole, without being involved in image forming ([0056]-[0059]);
a controller including a processor, the processor executing a control program to determine that the endless belt is skewing so as to shift in the belt width direction when a different between a time at which the first detector detects the first detection mark and a time at which the second detector detects the second detection mark is smaller than or greater than a predetermined reference time (see figs. 10, 14, Note that when the first and second marks are not detected within certain times of each other, an abnormality of skew is detected),
the reference time is a time based on the difference measures when the endless belt is running straightly (see fig. 11, note difference between belt timing before deformation, i.e., when the belt is running straightly, and after deformation),
an inclination angle of the second detection mark and the predetermined distance are set such that the difference monotonically changes in accordance with an increase or decrease in a shift amount of the endless belt in the width direction (see fig. 11, Note that difference in detection times and the amount of skew are proportional to each other, and thus, as one increases, so does the other).
Takeuchi in view of Enomoto and Woo does not teach wherein the first detector and the second detector are separated by a predetermined distance in the moving direction of the endless belt. Kudo teaches this (Kudo, see figs. 25-27, Note first and second detectors 205a, 205b separated in the moving direction of the belt). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the first and detectors in the movement direction of the belt, as disclosed by Kudo, instead of across the belt in the width direction at the same position in the movement direction, as disclosed by Takeuchi in view of Enomoto and Woo because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known two-detector scheme for detecting skew for another such scheme. In fact, Kudo teaches both variants in figures 13 and 25. Further, Kudo also teaches differences in timings of detections corresponding monotonically to a skew amount at fig. 26.
Takeuchi in view of Kudo does not teach a levelness adjustment device that adjusts levelness of the transport device. Enomoto teaches this (Enomoto, see figs. 1, 3, 6, para. [0081]-[0091]). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the levelness adjustment device disclosed by Enomoto to the printer of Takeuchi in view of Kudo because doing so would allow for the correction of the position of the belt, thereby reducing belt skew ([0075] of Enomoto).
Takeuchi in view of Kudo and Enomoto also does not teach wherein the first and second detection marks are circular and parallelogram with short sides parallel to the conveyance direction. Enomoto teaches circular detection marks (Enomoto, see fig. 8, Note marks 48). Woo teaches parallelogram detection marks meeting the claimed limitations (Woo, see fig. 10, Note detection mark MP). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use detection marks of any of the disclosed shapes because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one shape of mark for another to obtain predictable results.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04, a change in shape is not patentable if such a change would have been obvious. Here, whether the detection marks are circular, parallelogram, rectangular, etc., to use one shape of the other would have been obvious.
Further yet, the immediate specification does not give any detail as to why specifically circular and parallelogram detection marks are advantageous in the present invention, and thus Examiner wonders if the shapes are arbitrary.
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi in view of Kudo, Enomoto and Woo teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, note the prior art parallelogram, inclined second detection mark is inclined toward an upstream side and has two end portions point toward the two sides of the belt.
the controller is configured to:
determine that the endless belt is skewing so as to shift in the belt width direction, toward the second end portion, when the difference is smaller than the reference time, and that the endless belt is skewing so as to shift in the belt width direction, toward the one end portion, when the difference is greater than the reference time (Takeuchi, see fig. 10, [1039]-[0142], Note that belt skew affects the entire belt, and thus to state that the belt skews “toward the second end portion” could mean anything)
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi in view of Kudo, Enomoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of first support members (Takeuchi, fig., 1, items 41, 42, Enomoto, fig. 1, item 1) is provided at each of a plurality of positions in the transport device (Takeuchi, see fig. 2), and the levelness adjustment device includes: a second support member (Enomoto, fig. 1, item 7) supporting at least one of the first support members, and configured to move in an up-down direction; and a moving member that moves the second support member in the updown direction (Enomoto, Note that second support member 35 supports first support member 7 and moving un the updown direction),
and the levelness adjustment device adjusts skew of the endless belt by independently moving at least one of the first support members in the up-down direction (Enomoto, see fig. 4, Note that first support member 1 moves in the unlabeled slot).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights