DETAILED ACTION
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 4 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 wherein the end portions of the inclined detection mark are each near one end portion of the belt, but it appears from Figure 7 of the immediate application that the entire inclined detection mark can only be said to be near one end of the belt. That is, the entire detection mark is right next to the edge of the belt, and thus to state that one end of the mark is near to one end of the belt, and the other end of the mark is near another end of the belt is inaccurate. Correction is required.
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 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).
Takeuchi 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 because doing so would allow for the correction of the position of the belt, thereby reducing belt skew ([0075] of Enomoto).
Takeuchi 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 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
determine that the endless belt is skewing so as to shift in the belt width direction, toward the second end portion, difference smaller toward the one end portion difference greater
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi in view of Enomoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of first support members (Takeuchi, fig., 1, items 41, 42) 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).
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
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 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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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