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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murayama (US PG Pub 2013/0322904).
For claims 15 and 16: Murayama teaches a method for operating a printing machine 10 comprising the steps of moving a conveyor belt 36 of the printing machine 10 in a feed direction over a feed path discontinuously with interruptions or stepwise (see paragraph 37, the motor connected to the rollers 32, 34 driving the belt 36 of the belt unit 30 move the rollers to move the belt stepwise, as described driving by one step at a time), wherein the conveyor belt (10) comprises a plurality of portions along a feed direction 90 (see Figs. 1 and 3, routine operation of the printer, advancement of the belt in the feed direction) over the feed path 90; sequentially detecting at least one image of each portion of the plurality of portions of the conveyor belt 36 by a first optical sensor 24 and a second optical sensor 26 which are formed in the same way and which are spaced apart from each other in a direction which is not parallel to the feed direction (see Fig. 3, lateral spacing of the devices 24, 26); determining a deviation between an actual position and a target position of the conveyor belt based on the basis of the images of the plurality of portions of the conveyor belt (see paragraphs 5 and 52, detecting the deviation of the print object being the transfer belt, correcting the position); and adjusting the movement of the conveyor belt based on the basis of the deviation between the actual position and the target position of the conveyor belt (see paragraph 52, correcting the deviation).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (US PG Pub 2015/0234336) in view of Murayama (US PG Pub 2013/0322904) and deJong et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0097125).
For claim 1: Kosaka teaches a printing machine 100 (see Fig. 1) for printing a material, in particular a fabric, paper (see paragraph 45, sheet tray having sheets), cardboard, plastic, wood or metal, comprising: a conveyor belt 7 (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the conveyor belt 7 is movable in a feed direction (see Fig. 2, arrow, see Fig. 1, advancement of belt in routine operation) over a feed path (see Fig. 1, feed path being the path of the substrate from the tray 12 through the printer), wherein the conveyor belt 7 comprises a plurality of portions (see Fig. 2, a left side and a right side of the belt 7) along the feed direction over the feed path; an optical sensor 61, 61, wherein the optical sensor 61, 61 is arranged to detect at least one image of each portion of the plurality of portions of the conveyor belt (see Fig. 2, the sensors detector the sections Q) sequentially, wherein the optical sensor 61, 61 comprises a first optical sensor 61 and a second optical sensor 61 (see Fig. 2, left side and right side sensors 61, 61) which are formed in the same way and are spaced apart from each other in a direction which is not parallel to the feed direction (see Fig. 2, spaced apartment in the direction of the sheet width orthogonal to the feed direction). Kosaka does not explicitly teach an evaluation unit 100 which is arranged to determine a position of the conveyor belt based on the basis of the images of the plurality of portions of the conveyor belt or that the printing head is movable relative to the conveyor belt in a direction that is not parallel to the feed direction. However, Murayama teaches an evaluation unit which is arranged to determine a position of conveyor based on the images of the plurality of portions of the conveyor belt (see paragraphs 5 and 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kosaka to utilize the processor to determine the position and positional error of the conveyor belt as taught by Murayama for the purpose of enabling correction of the belt position when it is determined to be incorrect. The combination of Kosaka and Murayama does not teach that the printing head is movable relative to the conveyor belt in a direction that is not parallel to the feed direction. However, deJong et al. teaches a printing device can be an electrophotographic device (see paragraph 32 and Fig. 1) or equivalently an ink jet printing device with a reciprocating print head (see paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide the print head as a reciprocating print head as taught by deJong et al. as a known equivalent to the electrophotographic printing system with the capability of printing different image widths easily.
For claim 2: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 1 and Kosaka teaches that the optical sensor 61, 61 is arranged stationarily on the printing machine 100 or is arranged stationarily relative to the printing machine (see Fig. 2, see paragraph 47, the sensors 61, 61 are provided in the printing machine in a non-moving manner).
For claim 3: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 1 and Kosaka teaches that first and second optical sensors 61, 61 are directed towards or associated with opposite edges of the conveyor belt 7 (see Fig. 2, left and right edges respectively being opposite edges).
For claim 4: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 1 and Kosaka teaches that the plurality of portions along the feed direction over the feed path is a first plurality of portions along the feed direction (see Fig. 2, left and right sides, the left side being a first plurality of portions) over the feed path and the conveyor belt 7 comprises a second plurality of portions along the feed direction over the feed path (see Fig. 2, left and right sides, the right side being a second plurality of portions), wherein the first plurality of portions and the second plurality of portions are spaced apart from each other in the direction that is not parallel to the feed direction (see Fig. 2, spaced in the width direction), wherein the first optical sensor 62 is arranged to detect at least one image of each portion of the first plurality of portions sequentially and the second optical sensor 62 is arranged to detect at least one image of each portion of the second plurality of portions sequentially (see Fig. 2, each sensor for each section of marks) and Murayama teaches that the evaluation unit is arranged to determine the position of the conveyor belt based on on the basis of the images of the first plurality of portions and the second plurality of portions (see paragraphs 5 and 52).
For claim 6: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 1 and Kosaka teaches that the printing machine comprises a printing head 5 and the conveyor belt 7 comprises a marking element (see Fig. 2, surface of the conveyor belt 7 which is marked by mark Q), wherein the portions of the plurality of portions of the conveyor belt comprise or are portions of the marking element, and wherein the printing head 5 is arranged to apply a marking, in particular a regular marking, to the marking element (see paragraph 47).
For claim 8: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 6 and Kosaka teaches that the marking element extends continuously over the feed path along the feed direction and the marking element extends completely continuously along the feed direction on the conveyor belt (see Fig. 2, the marking element being the surface portion of the belt which can be marked, and being distinct from the marking itself, the marking element being the markable section extends continuously along the feed direction).
For claim 9: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine of claim 6 and Murayama teaches that the evaluation unit is arranged to determine the position of the conveyor belt based on the marking of the marking element (see paragraph 52).
For claim 10: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 6 and Kosaka further teaches that the marking element Q is a first marking element and the conveyor belt comprises a second marking element Q (see Fig. 2, second row of elements Q ) wherein the first marking element Q and the second marking element Q are spaced apart in a direction that is not parallel to the feed direction and wherein the printing head 5 is configured to apply the first marking element and second marking element Q (see paragraph 47).
For claim 11: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 1 and Kosaka teaches that the portions of the conveyor belt comprise portion of a surface of the conveyor belt (see Fig. 2).
For claim 12: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 12 except that the optical sensor has a resolution of at least 400 dpi. However, the dpi of the optical sensor is a result effective variable that can be arrived at through routine experimentation. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention arrive at the provision of an optical sensor with a dpi of at least 400 through routine experimentation for the purpose of ensuring that the resolution is sufficient to properly control the position of the printing components.
For claim 13: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches the printing machine according to claim 1 and Kosaka teaches that the optical sensor 61 comprises an illumination device 62. The combination does not specify that the light of wavelength greater than 800 nm is emitted. However, the wavelength of light of the optical sensor is a result effective variable that can be arrived at through routine experimentation. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention arrive at the provision of an optical sensor with an emitted wavelength of light of at least 800 nm so as to limit energy consumption and heating of the surface by the light emitter.
For claim 14: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 except that the distance between the surface of the conveyor belt and the optical sensor is less than 20 mm. However, the distance between the conveyor and the optical sensor is a result effective variable that can be arrived at through routine experimentation. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention arrive at the provision of an optical sensor within about 20 mm of the surface to permit a sufficient optical viewing range while keeping the apparatus sufficiently compact.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (US PG Pub 2015/0234336), Murayama (US PG Pub 2013/0322904) and deJong et al. (US PG Pub 2011/097125) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Roeck (US PG Pub 2019/0270320).
For claim 5: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 except that the conveyor belt is movable along the feed direction over the feed path discontinuously, with interruptions or stepwise. However, De Roeck teaches moving the conveyor belt along in the feed direction with discrete step increments to transport the belt and the print medium in a more controllable manner (see paragraph 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. to utilize the stepper motor of De Roeck for the purpose of having greater control over the movement of the conveyor belt and print medium.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (US PG Pub 2015/0234336), Murayama (US PG Pub 2013/0322904) deJong et al. (US PG Pub 2011/097125) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (US PG Pub 2012/0243014).
For claim 7: The combination of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 except that the mark is removably applied to the surface of the conveyor belt. However, Goto et al. teaches forming a mark on the surface of a conveyor (see Fig. 4) wherein the mark is removable (see paragraph 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kosaka, Murayama and deJong et al. to provide a device for removing the mark as taught by Goto et al. for the purpose of resetting conveyor for future usage.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama (US PG Pub 2013/0322904).
For claim 17: Murayama teaches a printing machine 10 for printing a material including a fabric, paper, cardboard, plastic, wood or metal, comprising: a conveyor belt 36, wherein the conveyor belt 36 is movable in a feed direction over a feed path (see Fig. 1, advancing along the direction of the dashed line representing the feed path), wherein the conveyor belt 36 comprises a plurality of portions X along the feed direction over the feed path (see Fig. 3);- an optical sensor 24 (see Fig. 3, or 26), wherein the optical sensor is arranged to detect at least one image of each portion of the plurality of portions of the conveyor belt sequentially (see Fig. 3); and an evaluation unit 62, 64 which is arranged to determine a position of the conveyor belt 36 based on the images of the plurality of portions X of the conveyor belt 36 (see paragraph 40, Fig. 2). Murayama et al. does not teach that a distance between a surface of the conveyor belt and the optical sensor is less than 20.0 mm. However, this distinction from the prior art can be overcome by a mere rearrangement of the known parts; in the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to position the optical sensor within 20.0mm of the surface of the belt to reduce the size of the total apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 15, Applicant has added the limitation that the conveyor belt is moved over a feed path discontinuously with interruptions or stepwise. This newly added limitation is addressed by paragraph 37 of the Murayama reference which address a motor driving the conveyor belt stepwise with single angular pulses and thus discontinuously. Applicant argues that claim 16 is distinguished from the prior art by virtue of its dependency on claim 15, but claim 16 is an independent claim.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has added the limitation “a printing head is movable relative to the conveyor belt in a direction that is not parallel to the feed direction”. The prior art combination of record does not disclose this limitation. However, a newly discovered deJong et al. reference renders equivalent a reciprocating print head and an electrophotographic printing system. This reference has been incorporated into the rejection above.
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 DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853