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 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear as to how the carriage is configured to scan the colorimeter. All that is mentioned in applicant’s specification is that the carriage moves in a scanning direction with the colorimeter. For examining purposes, the limitations of claim 5 will be interpreted as “the carriage carries the colorimeter in a scanning direction”. Appropriate action 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. (US 20190330001).
1. Matsuda et al. teach:
A drive device 150 comprising:
a drive motor 120/130 including a rotation shaft (the rotating shaft is inherent since each motor drives pulleys 121, 122, 131 & 132; fig 5A and MPEP 2112);
a sensor unit 128/138 including a slit disk 128a/138a (each disk has slits since each motor encoder has a light receiving and light emitting section with the disk between the two sections; para 0176 last sentence) in which is formed a plurality of slits and a sensor 128/138 that detects the slits; and
a holding member 153, wherein the slit disk is on the shaft of each second pulley to detect the position of each second pulley; but does not teach that the slit disk is attached to the rotation shaft and the drive motor and the sensor are attached to the holding member.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would place the encoders of Matsuda et al. on the rotating shafts of each drive motor to detect the position of each shaft which give better control over the drive device ensuring its reliability.
` As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of Matsuda et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the slit disk is attached to the rotation shaft and the drive motor and the sensor are attached to the holding member, as suggested by Matsuda et al. so as to ensure the reliability of the drive device.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. in view of Hatori (US 11799339) and Wen et al. (CN 217445118).
2. Matsuda et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the rotation shaft includes a first rotation shaft protruding from a first end face, which is one end of the drive motor, and a second rotation shaft protruding from a second end face, which is an other end of the drive motor, the drive motor is a cantilever structure fixed to a frame at the first end face, and the slit disk is attached to the second rotation shaft.
Hattori teaches that the rotation shaft includes a first rotation shaft protruding from a first end face, which is one end of the drive motor, and a second rotation shaft protruding from a second end face, which is an other end of the drive motor to make the installation of the rotor core onto the shaft simplified (col 1 2nd para).
Wen et al. teach that the drive motor 300 is a cantilever structure (figs 1 & 2) fixed to a frame 100 at the first end face 120, and the slit disk (of Matsuda et al.) is attached to the second rotation shaft (annotated fig below) to improve the versatility of the motor as it can drive loads at opposite ends as opposed to only one load at one end.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Matsuda et al. before it was effectively filed to modify it such that the rotation shaft includes a first rotation shaft protruding from a first end face, which is one end of the drive motor, and a second rotation shaft protruding from a second end face, which is an other end of the drive motor, the drive motor is a cantilever structure fixed to a frame at the first end face, and the slit disk is attached to the second rotation shaft, as taught by Hattori and Wen et al. so as to simplify the manufacturing of the motor and improve its versatility.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. in view of Onishi (US 8169614).
5. Matsuda et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not explicitly teach a colorimeter device comprising: the drive device according to claim 1; a colorimeter configured to measure a color of a measurement target; and a carriage supporting the colorimeter and configured to scan the colorimeter.
However, Onishi teaches a colorimeter device 82 comprising: a colorimeter 31 configured to measure a color of a measurement target P; and a carriage 51 supporting the colorimeter and configured to scan the colorimeter (see 112 rejection above and figs 3, 6 & 9). The versatility of the drive device of Matsuda et al. would be improved because it not only is used for the device disclosed in the specification but it would be also used to drive the colorimeter of Onishi.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Matsuda et al. was effectively filed to modify it with a colorimeter device comprising: the drive device according to claim 1; a colorimeter configured to measure a color of a measurement target; and a carriage supporting the colorimeter and configured to scan the colorimeter, as taught by Onishi so as to improve the reliability of the drive device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. in view of Cao et al. (CN 214398746).
6. Matsuda et al. teach:
A drive device 150 comprising:
a first pulley 131;
a second pulley 132;
a timing belt 133 stretched between the first pulley and the second pulley;
a drive motor 130 configured to drivingly rotate the first pulley; but does not teach that i) a belt regulating section that regulates a shifting movement of the timing belt, and ii) wherein the belt regulating section has a regulating face formed along an outer peripheral surface of the timing belt at a position where the timing belt is stretched around the first pulley.
Cao et al. teach that i) a belt regulating section 54 that regulates a shifting movement of the timing belt 53 (since it is a shifter), and ii) wherein the belt regulating section has a regulating face (since it touches the outer peripheral surface of the timing belt, fig 2 below) formed along an outer peripheral surface of the timing belt at a position where the timing belt is stretched around the first pulley 51 to provide stepless speed adjusting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Matsuda et al. had been effectively filed to modify it such that i) a belt regulating section that regulates a shifting movement of the timing belt, and ii) wherein the belt regulating section has a regulating face formed along an outer peripheral surface of the timing belt at a position where the timing belt is stretched around the first pulley, as taught by Cao et al. so as to provide stepless shifting of the timing belt.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. in view of Cao et al. and in further view of Onishi.
11. Matsuda et al. has been discussed above, re claim 6; but does not explicitly teach a colorimeter device comprising: the drive device according to claim 6; a colorimeter configured to measure a color of a an object; and a carriage configured to accommodate the colorimeter; and a gantry in which the carriage is movably attached and movable in a direction intersecting the moving direction of the carriage.
However, Onishi teaches a colorimeter device 82 comprising: a colorimeter 31 configured to measure a color of an object P; and a carriage 51 configured to accommodate the colorimeter; and a gantry 52 in which the carriage is movably attached and movable in a direction C intersecting the moving direction C of the carriage (see figs 3, 6 & 9). The versatility of the drive device of Matsuda et al. would be improved because it not only is used for the device disclosed in the specification but it would be also used to drive the colorimeter of Onishi.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Matsuda et al. was effectively filed to modify it with a colorimeter device comprising: the drive device according to claim 6; a colorimeter configured to measure a color of a an object; and a carriage configured to accommodate the colorimeter; and a gantry in which the carriage is movably attached and movable in a direction intersecting the moving direction of the carriage, as taught by Onishi so as to improve the reliability of the drive device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7-10, 12 & 13 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. 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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834