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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 12-19 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-11 have been canceled. Claims 12-19 are new and have been added.
Response to Amendment
35 USC 112(b). The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-11 under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/10/2026. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks regarding new claims 12-19 are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a guide member in claim(s) 18.
a drive mechanism in claim(s) 18
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner interprets a guide member as linked to a guide rail and equivalents thereof (instant specification, [0013]).
The Examiner interprets a drive mechanism as linked to a belt 312, a driving pulley 314, a driven pulley 316, and a motor 318. and equivalents thereof (instant specification, [0064]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (JP-2009018453-A - translation provided).
Regarding claim 12, Miyamoto teaches a printer 10 (a shaping device) comprising a carriage and print head 24 that includes a plurality of print heads 24a to 24d, wherein each print head is provided corresponding to a plurality of ink cartridges corresponding to a plurality of ink types (for example, cyan (C), magenta (M), yellow (Y), black (K)), and each ink type, and wherein each print head comprises a plurality of nozzle rows (a plurality of ink tanks; a plurality of head units, wherein each of the plurality of head units includes a plurality of nozzle rows) (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 5-6).
While Miyamoto does not specify a printer wherein each of the plurality of ink tanks are independent from each other as instantly claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the printer disclosed in Miyamoto such that each of the plurality of ink tanks are independent from each other with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 13-14, as applied to claim 12, Miyamoto teaches a printer 10 comprising a plurality of print heads 24a to 24d detachably attached to the carriage (wherein the plurality of head units comprises at least: a first head unit detachably attached to the carriage, a second head unit detachably attached to the carriage, and a third head unit detachably attached to the carriage) (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 5-6).
While Miyamoto discloses a printer wherein each print head comprises a plurality of nozzle rows, Miyamoto does not explicitly disclose a printer wherein the first head unit includes a first set of plurality of nozzle rows, the second head unit includes a second set of plurality of nozzle rows, and the third head unit includes a third set of plurality of nozzle rows.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the printer disclosed in Miyamoto such that the first head unit includes a first set of plurality of nozzle rows, the second head unit includes a second set of plurality of nozzle rows, and the third head unit includes a third set of plurality of nozzle rows, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claims 15, as applied to claim 13, Miyamoto teaches a printer 10 comprising print head 24 that includes a plurality of print heads 24a to 24d, wherein each print head is provided corresponding to a plurality of ink cartridges corresponding to a plurality of ink types (wherein the plurality of ink tanks comprises: a first ink tank; a second ink tank; a third ink tank; a fourth ink tank) (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 5-6).
While Miyamoto does not specify a printer wherein the first ink tank, the second ink tank, the third ink, and the fourth ink tank are independent from each other as instantly claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the printer disclosed in Miyamoto such that the first ink tank, the second ink tank, the third ink, and the fourth ink tank are independent from each other with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
While Miyamoto does not specify a printer wherein the first set of plurality of nozzle rows of the first head unit comprises: a first nozzle row, connected to the first ink tank via a first ink supply path; and a second nozzle row, connected to the second ink tank via a second ink supply path; wherein the second set of plurality of nozzle rows of the second head unit comprises: a third nozzle row, connected to the third ink tank via a third ink supply path; and a fourth nozzle row, connected to the fourth ink tank via a fourth ink supply path, wherein the first ink supply path, the second ink supply path, the third ink supply path, and the fourth ink supply path are independent from each other as instantly claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the printer disclosed in Miyamoto such that the first set of plurality of nozzle rows of the first head unit comprises: a first nozzle row, connected to the first ink tank via a first ink supply path; and a second nozzle row, connected to the second ink tank via a second ink supply path; wherein the second set of plurality of nozzle rows of the second head unit comprises: a third nozzle row, connected to the third ink tank via a third ink supply path; and a fourth nozzle row, connected to the fourth ink tank via a fourth ink supply path, wherein the first ink supply path, the second ink supply path, the third ink supply path, and the fourth ink supply path are independent from each other with a reasonable expectation of success in order to supply ink from each ink tank to each respective nozzle row.
Regarding claims 16-17, as applied to claim 15, Miyamoto teaches an apparatus comprising a first ink tank, a second ink tank, a third ink tank, and a fourth ink tank as instantly claimed (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 5-6). However, the limitations “wherein the first ink tank contains a first ink; the second ink tank contains a second ink; the third ink contains a third ink; the fourth ink tank contains a fourth ink; the first ink, the second ink, the third ink, and the fourth ink are different inks; nor wherein the first ink is ink having a first color; the second ink is ink having a second color; the third ink is a light reflective ink; the fourth ink is a clear ink” recite the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed and do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (JP-2009018453-A - translation provided), as applied to claim 17, and in further view Hakkaku (US 2016/0082654 A1).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 17, while Miyamoto teaches an apparatus comprising a carriage, a plurality of head units, and a main scanning drive circuit 16 (main scan drive unit) (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 5-6), Miyamoto does not teach a main scan drive unit that causes the plurality of head units to perform a main scanning operation of ejecting ink while moving in a main scanning direction set in advance; and a flattening means that includes a flattening roller that flattens a layer of the ink, wherein the main scan drive unit includes: a guide member that guides movement of the carriage in the main scanning direction; and a drive mechanism that moves the carriage along the guide member, and the flattening means is held by the guide member so as to be movable in the main scanning direction outside the carriage.
However, in the same field of endeavor, modeling apparatus, Hakkaku teaches the known technology of a modeling apparatus comprising a main scan drive unit that causes the plurality of head units to perform a main scanning operation of ejecting ink while moving in a main scanning direction set in advance (main scanning drive unit 14); and a flattening means that includes a flattening roller that flattens a layer of the ink (flattening roller 222), wherein the main scan drive unit includes: a guide member that guides movement of the carriage in the main scanning direction (guide rail 104); and a drive mechanism that moves the carriage along the guide member (control unit 18), and the flattening means is held by the guide member so as to be movable in the main scanning direction outside the carriage (¶0036,0040-0045).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the device disclosed in Miyamoto by applying the known technique of a main scan drive unit that causes the plurality of head units to perform a main scanning operation of ejecting ink while moving in a main scanning direction set in advance; and a flattening means that includes a flattening roller that flattens a layer of the ink, wherein the main scan drive unit includes: a guide member that guides movement of the carriage in the main scanning direction; and a drive mechanism that moves the carriage along the guide member, and the flattening means is held by the guide member so as to be movable in the main scanning direction outside the carriage as disclosed in Hakkaku to the shaping device disclosed in Miyamoto with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (JP-2009018453-A - translation provided), as applied to claim 15, and in further view Ikeda (US 2019/0143710 A1).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 15, while Miyamoto teaches an apparatus comprising a plurality of ink tanks, (Fig 1-2 and Translation, Pg 5-6), Miyamoto does not teach an apparatus wherein the first ink supply path, the second ink supply path, the third ink supply path, and the fourth ink supply path are physically and/or functionally independent from each other.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (ink supply paths that are physically and/or functionally independent from each other; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Ikeda discloses an apparatus comprising a plurality of storage tanks 100, in which inks of respective colors composing the ink sets are respectively stored, are installed, wherein the storage tanks 100 include a yellow ink storage tank 100 y, a magenta ink storage tank 100 m, a cyan ink storage tank 100 c, and a black ink storage tank 100 bk, which respectively store the process color inks composing the ink set A; wherein the storage tanks 100 also include at least two of an orange ink storage tank 100 o, a green ink storage tank 100 g, a violet ink storage tank 100 v, and a blue ink storage tank 100 b, which respectively store the special color inks composing the ink set B; and wherein the ink-jet recording apparatus 1 also includes an ink flow path 11, a head carriage 13, and an ink head 15, which are to be connected to each storage tank 100 (known technique of the first ink supply path, the second ink supply path, the third ink supply path, and the fourth ink supply path are physically and/or functionally independent from each other) (Fig 1-2 and ¶0140-0141).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Miyamoto by applying the known technique of the first ink supply path, the second ink supply path, the third ink supply path, and the fourth ink supply path are physically and/or functionally independent from each other disclosed in Ikeda to the apparatus comprising a plurality of ink tanks in Miyamoto with predictable results and resulting in an improved apparatus. MPEP 2143(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koda (US 2014/0009544 A1) teaches an apparatus wherein the carriage 233 mounts liquid ejection heads 234a and 234b (collectively referred to as "liquid ejection heads 234" unless distinguished) serving as recording heads for ejecting ink droplets of different colors, e.g., yellow (Y), cyan (C), magenta (M), and black (K) (¶0078).
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 JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
JaMel Nelson
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights