DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 3-5, 11-13, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (2005/0212883) in view of Watanabe (8,272,731).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto teaches the liquid ejection apparatus comprising: a recording unit configured to perform recording by ejecting liquid onto a medium;
a conveyance unit (fig. 1, item 20/22/24) configured to convey the medium (see fig. 1), and;
a controller (fig. 2, item 102) configured to control the conveyance unit, wherein
the conveyance unit includes a support unit (fig. 1, item 20) opposed to the recording unit, and configured to support the medium on which the liquid is ejected (see fig. 1),
an upstream conveyance unit (fig. 1, item 32) located upstream in a conveyance direction of the support unit of the medium, and configured to convey the medium to the support unit (see fig. 1), and
a downstream conveyance unit (fig. 1, item 46) located downstream in the conveyance direction of the support unit, and configured to convey the medium from the support unit (see fig. 1),
the support unit is displaced between a first position (fig. 1A position shown) opposed to the recording unit and a second position (compare figs. 1A, 1C, position intermediate to both shown positions) farther from the recording unit than the first position by rotating the support unit about a rotational axis extending in a width direction crossing the conveyance direction
the support unit includes a conveyance belt (fig. 1, item 20) configured to convey the medium (see fig. 1),
the rotational axis located downstream in the conveyance direction with respect to a center of the support unit (see fig. 1),
the second position is a position where the support unit is inclined when the upstream conveyance unit located upstream in the conveyance direction of the support unit moves downward in a vertical direction (see fig. 1),
when the conveyance stops in a state where at least a part of the medium is supported by the support unit, the controller displaces the support unit 70 does not detect a sheet after a predetermined time, a jam is determined, and the conveyance unit 20/22/24 is pivoted so that an existing sheet bends downward from chute 46), and
the medium is supported by the downstream conveyance unit and the support unit located at the second position to thereby form the curve (see fig. 1, Note that when sensor 70 does not detect a sheet after a predetermined time, a jam is determined, and the conveyance unit 20/22/24 is pivoted so that an existing sheet bends downward to form a curve from chute 46).
Okamoto does not teach wherein the conveyance belt is configured to adsorb the medium, wherein the rotational axis corresponds to the downstream conveyance unit as opposed to the upstream conveyance unit or wherein, when the support unit is moved to the second position, the control unit circulates the conveyance belt in a circulating direction used for conveying the medium in the conveyance direction. Watanabe teaches these (Watanabe, see figs. 2, 3, 7, Note fans 6 to adsorb medium. Note the rotational axis of the support unit 61-63 corresponds with the upstream conveyance unit 63, and note that, after the support unit is moved to the second, release position, the belt is driven in the conveyance direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add fans to adsorb the medium because doing so would ensure flatness, rotate the support unit around the upstream conveyance unit instead of the downstream conveyance unit because the two were obvious variants based on spacing constraints in any given printer and circulate the belt after the support unit was moved to the second position because doing so would move the medium closer to the discharge/exit, thereby speeding up the process of eliminating a paper jam.
Upon combination of the references, after the support unit was moved to the second position, the belt would be driven while the medium was held by the downstream conveyance unit so that a curve of the type shown in Figure 16 of the immediate application would be obtained.
Regarding claim 3, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a detection unit (Okamoto, fig. 1, item 70) configured to detect the medium at a position downstream in the conveyance direction of the downstream conveyance unit (Okamoto, see fig. 1, note 70 is downstream of 46), wherein when the conveyance stops, the controller controls the conveyance unit such that the medium forms the curve in a state where the detection unit detects the medium (Okamoto, see fig. 1, Note that there are several portions of the medium in a curved state when conveyance stops).
Regarding claim 4, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein when the detection unit fails to detect the medium when the conveyance stops, the controller makes the conveyance unit convey the medium in the conveyance direction until the detection unit detects the medium (Okamoto, see fig. 1, Note that the medium is conveyed until sensor 70 detects it).
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein when the detection unit detects the medium when the conveyance stops, the controller makes the conveyance unit convey the medium in a direction opposite to the conveyance direction within a range for the detection unit to detect the medium (Okamoto, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller selects one of a first mode in which the conveyance unit is controlled such that the medium forms the curve when the conveyance stops in a state in which at least a part of the medium is supported by the support unit, and a second mode in which the conveyance unit is not controlled such that the medium forms the curve when the conveyance stops in the state in which at least a part of the medium is supported by the support unit (Okamoto, see fig. 1, Note that not curve is formed in 1A and a curve is formed in 1C).
Regarding claim 12, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller announces an occurrence of an abnormality after the medium forms the curve (Okamoto, fig. 6B, S140).
Regarding claim 13, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the support unit is displaceable to a third position farther from the recording unit than the second position (Okamoto, see fig. 1C, position shown).
Regarding claim 16, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein while the support unit is displaced from the first position to the second position, the upstream conveyance unit conveys the medium in the conveyance direction, the conveyance belt circulates the circulating device in the circulating direction, and the rotation of the downstream, conveyance unit remains stopped (Note that, upon combination of the references, the limitations would be met).
Regarding claim 18, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the medium is supported by the downstream conveyance unit and the support unit located at the second position (Okamoto, see fig. 1C), thereby forming the curve between the downstream conveyance unit and the rotational axis (Okamoto, fig. 1C, Note that at least part of the curved medium would be between the upper guide of downstream conveyance unit 46 and the rotational axis of 22).
Regarding claim 19, Okamoto in view of Watanabe teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 18, wherein a vertex of the curve is located between the downstream conveyance unit and the rotational axis (Okamoto, fig. 1C, Note that at least part of the curved medium would be between the upper guide of downstream conveyance unit 46 and the rotational axis of 22. Note that any curved portion of the medium could be said to amount to a vertex. The curved portion of the medium between upper guide of 46 and 22 is a vertex. Further, note that Figure 16 of the present application shows a vertex that is not actually between the downstream conveyance unit 22 and the axis 26a. That is, the three elements form a triangle, not a line).
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, 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