Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/731,888

INK-JET RECORDING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 03, 2024
Examiner
QUINN, NATASHA DEPHENIA
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kyocera Document Solutions Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
10 granted / 11 resolved
+22.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
35
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
70.6%
+30.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 11 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 110 and 16. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al. (JP 2021121483 A) in view of Tamaki (US 20170225466 A1) Regarding claim 1, Amano teaches an ink-jet recording apparatus (Figure 1 displays a “printer 1” described in paragraph [0024].) comprising: a conveying unit (Figure 1 displays a “transport unit 10” described in paragraph [0025].) including a conveying belt (Figure 1 displays an “endless transport belt 15” described in paragraph [0032].) configured to convey a recording medium (Paragraph [0032] describes how the “medium P”, displayed in Figure 1, is transported by the “endless transport belt 15”.), and a conveying roller (Figure 1 displays the “two pulleys 14” described in paragraph [0032]) over which the conveying belt is stretched (Paragraph [0032] describes how the “endless transport belt 15” is wound around the “two pulleys 14”.); a recording head (Figure 1 displays the “line head 20” described in paragraph [0025]) includes an ink ejection surface (Figure 2 displays the “ink ejection surface NA” described in paragraph [0055]) provided with a plurality of nozzles (Figure 2 displays the “nozzle N” described in paragraph [0033].) configured to eject ink onto the recording medium conveyed by the conveying unit (Paragraph [0033] describes the “medium P” being recorded on by ejecting ink from the “nozzle N”.); a guide rail configured to support the head housing so that the head housing can reciprocate with respect to the conveying belt (Figure 5 displays the “guide rail 37” that is part of the “support frame 22” that supports the “line head 20” move in the “B direction” which is an inclined array in the horizontal “X direction” described in paragraphs [0030]-[0033].), wherein the ink ejection surface is parallel to a conveying surface of the conveying belt (Figure 2, displays a “ink ejection surface NA” that is parallel to the surface of the “transport belt 15”.), the ink ejection surface is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction in a cross section orthogonal to an axial direction of the conveying roller (Figure 1 displays how the “ink ejection surface NA” is arranged along the “A direction”, described in paragraph [0033], that is at an angle with respect to the “X direction” described in paragraph [0025].), the ink ejection surface reciprocates between a printing position close to the conveying surface and a maintenance position retracted from the conveying surface (Figures 14-18 display how the “ink ejection surface NA” of the “lined head 20” is moved from a “recording position” with the “ink ejection surface NA” printing on the “medium P” to a “retracted position” that allows the “maintenance unit” to clean the “ink ejection surface NA” described in paragraphs [0038],[0081]-[0082].). Amano fails to teach a head housing holding the recording head. However, Tamaki teaches a head housing holding the recording head (Figure 2 displays an “inkjet head 5” is attached to the bottom of the “sub-tank 4” that is mounted on the “carriage 3” described in paragraph [0036]-[0040].) Amano and Tamaki are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving inkjet recording apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printer taught by Amano to also apply a head housing holding the recording head taught by Tamaki. This would have been done for the purpose of holding the recording heads (Tamaki, paragraphs [0036]-[0040]). Amano fails to teach moving the head housing along the guide rail extending in the horizontal direction. However, Tamaki teaches moving the head housing along the guide rail extending in the horizontal direction (Figure 1 displays the “carriage 3” moving along the “guide rails 11 and 12” in the “scanning direction”, which is horizontal when compared to the “up-down direction” shown in Figure 2, described in paragraph [0037].). Amano and Tamaki are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving inkjet recording apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printer taught by Amano to also apply moving the head housing along the guide rail extending in the horizontal direction taught by Tamaki. This would have been done for the purpose of moving the inkjet head towards or from the maintenance unit for cleaning (Tamaki, paragraphs [0037]-[0041]). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Amano and Tamaki teaches the ink-jet recording apparatus according to claim 1, Amano further discloses wherein timing at which the nozzles eject the ink onto the recording medium is determined based on a distance between the ink ejection surface and the conveying surface when the ink ejection surface is disposed in the printing position (Figure 14 displays the “line head 20” being in a “recording position” that the “line head 20” needs to enable recording information on the “medium P”. Paragraphs [0012] and [0081] further discloses how the distance between the surface of the recording unit and the surface of the medium dictates the “recording position” of the “line head 20” by having an “adjusting unit” that adjusts the “recording position” of the “line head 20” based on the thickness of the medium.). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claim 2 is the inclusion of “the conveying unit includes a roller housing disposed outside the axial direction of the conveying roller, wherein the head housing includes a protruding portion protruding in an ejection direction of the ink, and when the ink ejection surface is disposed in the printing position, the protruding portion is in contact with the roller housing, and holds constantly a distance between the ink ejection surface and the conveying surface”. Claim 3 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claim 3 is the inclusion of “the head housing includes a protruded region protruding in a width direction of the storage medium orthogonal to a conveying direction, the roller housing includes a recessed portion formed by being recessed in the horizontal direction from a surface that faces the head housing, and, when the ink ejection surface is disposed in the printing position, the protruded region is disposed in the recessed portion”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT. 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 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. /N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 03, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596250
LIGHT SCANNING APPARATUS AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576640
LIQUID DISCHARGE HEAD, LIQUID DISCHARGE DEVICE, AND LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12552161
RECORDING ELEMENT UNIT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING RECORDING ELEMENT UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552155
Drive Circuit And Liquid Ejecting Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12547093
LIGHT SCANNING APPARATUS AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 11 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month