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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. “from a nip” in line 4 should be “form a nip”. Appropriate correction is required.
Further depending claims not mentioned inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims and are rejected [objected to] under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s specification does not define any case where Da is a first interval between the two or more protrusions. Examiner assumes the definition of Da to be the width of either of the protrusions for examination purposes.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoshina et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150210091 A1, hereinafter “Hoshina”).
Regarding Claim 11, Hoshina teaches a coating method comprising:
contacting with a medium and coating the medium, conveyed in a conveyance direction (par 0035 Fig 3 while the recording medium W is being conveyed in a conveyance direction while being clamped between the coating roller 338 and the pressure roller 339, one side (back side) of the recording medium W is being coated with the treatment liquid by the coating roller 338), with liquid with a coater (par 0027 Fig 2 coating apparatus (coating device) 330, coating mechanism 33/34);
moving the coater in a width direction intersecting the conveyance direction (par 0049 Fig 3 coating mechanism 33 includes a reciprocating mechanism 11; par 0066 reciprocates the coating roller 338 that is held in the coating unit 15 relative to the pressure roller 339 in the width direction of the recording medium W);
moving a sensor feeler together with the coater in the width direction (par 0064 Fig 3 position sensor marker 28 slidable with the slider in the width direction; par 0072 multiple targets 28 may be provided; Examiner submits that since the sensor is stated to be a photo-interrupter type, the markers are implicitly “interrupters” or protrusions);
detecting a position of the sensor feeler at multiple positions (par 0070 Fig 3 second right end sensor 13 spaced from the left sensor 13 in the width direction to sense markers 28; par 0072 multiple targets 28 may be provided; par 0070 Fig 3 the sensor elements of sensor 13 located at both edges [i.e., first at a first left edge, second at a second right edge] of the line detect that the reciprocating mechanism 11 reaches at respective ends of a movement width; Examiner submits that since the sensor is stated to be a photo-interrupter type, the markers are implicitly “interrupters” or protrusions along the width direction, with a recess between them to discriminate the two end positions); and
controlling a position of the coater in the width direction based on the position of the sensor feeler detected at multiple positions (par 0073 Fig 3 reciprocation controller 82 controls the travel direction of the reciprocation, a reciprocating speed, and the driving period of the slider 30 of the coater reciprocating mechanism 11 based on the detected sensor position data).
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150210091 A1, hereinafter “Hoshina”) in view of Moon (U.S. Patent Application 20080018726 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hoshina teaches a liquid coater (par 0026 Fig 2 pretreatment apparatus (pretreatment liquid coating and drying apparatus 101)) comprising:
a coater (par 0027 Fig 2 coating apparatus (coating device) 330, coating mechanism 33/34) to contact with a medium and coat, with a liquid, the medium conveyed to the coater in a conveyance direction (par 0035 Fig 3 while the recording medium W is being conveyed while being clamped between the coating roller 338 and the pressure roller 339, one side (back side) of the recording medium W is being coated with the treatment liquid by the coating roller 338); and
a driver, to move the coater in a width direction intersecting the conveyance direction (par 0049 Fig 3 coating mechanism 33 includes a reciprocating mechanism 11; par 0066 reciprocates the coating roller 338 that is held in the coating unit 15 relative to the pressure roller 339 in the width direction of the recording medium W), the driver including:
a slider slidable with the coater in the width direction (par 0065 Fig 3 slider 30 slides in the page width direction); and
a sensor feeler slidable with the slider in the width direction (par 0064 Fig 3 position sensor marker 28 slidable with the slider in the width direction; par 0072 multiple targets 28 may be provided; Examiner submits that since the sensor is stated to be a photo-interrupter type, the markers are implicitly “interrupters” or protrusions) and including:
two or more protrusions along the width direction (par 0072 multiple targets 28 may be provided; Examiner submits that since the sensor is stated to be a photo-interrupter type, two end-of-travel markers would implicitly be “interrupters” or protrusions along the width direction); and
a recess between the two or more protrusions in the width direction (par 0072 multiple targets 28 may be provided; Examiner submits that since the sensor is stated to be a photo-interrupter type, the markers are implicitly “interrupters” or protrusions along the width direction, with a recess between them to discriminate the two ends); and
multiple feeler sensors arranged in the width direction (paras 0067,0070 Fig 3 multiple photo interrupters arranged in the width direction) and including:
a first feeler sensor (par 0070 Fig 3 first left end sensor 13); and
a second feeler sensor, separated from the first feeler sensor in the width direction, to detect the two or more protrusions and the recess of the sensor feeler (par 0070 Fig 3 second right end sensor 13 spaced from the left sensor 13 in the width direction to sense markers 28; par 0072 multiple targets 28 may be provided; Examiner submits that since the sensor is stated to be a photo-interrupter type, the markers are implicitly “interrupters” or protrusions along the width direction, with a recess between them to discriminate the two end positions); and
circuitry configured to control a movement of the coater based on (par 0073 Fig 3 reciprocation controller 82 controls the travel direction of the reciprocation, a reciprocating speed, and the driving period of the slider 30 of the coater reciprocating mechanism 11 based on the detected position data) a combination of:
a first sensor output that is an output from the first feeler sensor in response to a detection of the sensor feeler (par 0070 Fig 3 the sensor elements of sensor 13 located at both edges [i.e., first at a first left edge] of the line detect that the reciprocating mechanism 11 reaches at respective ends of a movement width); and
a second sensor output that is an output from the second feeler sensor in response to a detection of the sensor feeler (par 0070 Fig 3 the sensor elements of sensor 13 located at both edges [i.e., second at a second right edge] of the line detect that the reciprocating mechanism 11 reaches at respective ends of a movement width).
Though Examiner submits that protrusions and a recess are implicitly provided by Hoshina, Hoshina appears not to expressly teach
two or more protrusions along the width direction; and
a recess between the two or more protrusions in the width direction; and first and second feeler sensors arranged separated in the width direction to detect the two or more protrusions and the recess of the sensor feeler.
In a similar area of endeavor Moon teaches a reciprocating mechanism in a liquid coater/sprayer (par 0022 Figs 1-3 reciprocating sliding table 11) comprising
two or more protrusions along the translation direction (par 0037 Figs 1-2 protrusions 45, 45a on the slider/table in line along the translation direction); and
a recess between the two or more protrusions in the width direction (par 0037 Figs 1-2 non-protrusion area between protrusions 45, 45a); and
first and second feeler sensors arranged separated in the translation direction to detect the two or more protrusions and the recess of the sensor feeler (par 0037 Figs 1-2 first and second feeler sensors 15, 15a arranged separated in the translation direction; the first sensor 15 sensing an end position of the reciprocating range at protrusion 45a [and a reciprocating range in the recess area between], the second sensor 15a sensing the other end position of the reciprocating range at protrusion 45).
Hoshina and Moon are analogous art as they each pertain to liquid coating devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater with width-wise reciprocating slider and associated position sensor of Hoshina with the inclusion of the first and second feeler sensors arranged separated in the translation direction to detect two or more protrusions and the recess therebetween to control a reciprocating range of a reciprocating member of Moon. The motivation would have been in order to provide that reciprocation of the reciprocating member is controlled not to depart from its intended range (Moon par 0037).
Regarding Claim 7, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 1, wherein
the two or more protrusions has (2 x n) number of protrusions, on one side of the sensor feeler in the conveyance direction, along the width direction, where n is a natural number (Moon par 0037 Figs 1-2 n=1, 2n= two protrusions 45, 45a on the slider/table in line along the translation direction), and
a number of the multiple feeler sensors is identical to the (2 x n) number of protrusions (Moon par 0037 Figs 1-2 the number of sensors is also two: first and second feeler sensors 15, 15a arranged separated in the translation direction; the first sensor 15 sensing an end position of the reciprocating range at protrusion 45a [and a reciprocating range in the recess area between], the second sensor 15a sensing the other end position of the reciprocating range at protrusion 45).
Hoshina and Moon are analogous art as they each pertain to liquid coating devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater with width-wise reciprocating slider and associated position sensor of Hoshina with the inclusion of the first and second feeler sensors arranged separated in the translation direction to detect two or more protrusions to control a reciprocating range of a reciprocating member of Moon. The motivation would have been in order to provide that reciprocation of the reciprocating member is controlled not to depart from its intended range (Moon par 0037).
Regarding Claim 12, Hoshina as modified teaches an image forming system comprising:
the liquid coater according to claim 1 to coat the medium with a first liquid (Hoshina par 0024 Fig 1 pretreatment apparatus 101 having a coating device 330 applies a first treatment liquid, that has a function to coagulate ink to be applied to an image forming surface of the recording medium W, to the recording medium W); and
a liquid discharge apparatus to discharge a second liquid onto the medium coated with the first liquid to form an image on the medium (Hoshina par 0025 Fig 1 a first inkjet printer 102 provided downstream in a direction in which the recording medium is conveyed, ejects ink droplets to form an image on the face that is coated with the treatment liquid).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150210091 A1, hereinafter “Hoshina”) in view of Moon (U.S. Patent Application 20080018726 A1) and further in view of Wagener U.S. Patent Application 20130050714 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 1. However, Hoshina as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
following relationships are satisfied:
Da < Dc,
Db < Dc, and
Dc < Da + Db,
where Da is a width of either of the two or more protrusions,
Db is a width of the recess, and
Dc is a second interval between the first feeler sensor and the second feeler sensor of the multiple feeler sensors.
Kato teaches a horizontal slider wherein
following relationships are satisfied:
Da < Dc (par 0020 Figs 1,2 Da=L1<Dc=1.25L1),
Db < Dc (par 0020 Figs 1,2 Db=L1<Dc=1.25L1), and
Dc < Da + Db (par 0020 Figs 1,2 Dc=1.25L1< Da+Db=L1+L1=2L1),
where Da is a width of either of the two or more protrusions (par 0020 Figs 1,2 Da=L1 light blocking area equivalent to a blocking protrusion),
Db is a width of the recess (par 0020 Figs 1,2 Db=L1 light transmission area equivalent to width of the recess between blocking protrusions), and
Dc is a second interval between the first feeler sensor and the second feeler sensor of the multiple feeler sensors (par 0020 Figs 1,2 distance between first sensor FT1 and third sensor FT3).
Hoshina Moon and Wagener are analogous art as they each pertain to liquid coating devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater of Hoshina/Moon with the inclusion of the slider position sensor arrangement of Wagener. The motivation would have been in order to enable in a simple manner a reference position and an incremental movement as well as the movement direction of a movable part to be determined (Wagener par 0010).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150210091 A1, hereinafter “Hoshina”) in view of Moon (U.S. Patent Application 20080018726 A1) and further in view of Stewart et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 5644841A, hereinafter “Stewart”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 1, wherein
the coater includes:
a first roller to coat the medium with the liquid (Hoshina par 0035 Fig 3 coating roller 338); and
a second roller facing the first roller to from a nip between the first roller and the second roller to nip the medium (Hoshina par 0035 Fig 3 pressure roller 339).
However, Hoshina appears not to expressly teach
the first roller has a surface made of a rubber material or has a coated surface.
Stewart teaches
the first roller has a surface made of a rubber material (col 6 lines 18-24 Fig 1 liquid application first roller 16 has a rubber coating) or has a coated surface.
Hoshina Moon and Stewart are analogous art as they each pertain to liquid coating devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater of Hoshina/Moon with the inclusion of the coating roller rubber surface of Stewart. The motivation would have been in order to provide a nip that controls a metered amount of liquid on a surface of the media (Stewart col 6 lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 4, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 3, wherein
the second roller has:
a surface made of a rubber material (col 6 lines 18-24 Fig 1 second roller 14 has a rubber coating); or a coated surface.
Hoshina Moon and Stewart are analogous art as they each pertain to liquid coating devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater of Hoshina/Moon with the inclusion of the coating roller rubber surface of Stewart. The motivation would have been in order to provide a nip that controls a metered amount of liquid on a surface of the media (Stewart col 6 lines 45-50).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150210091 A1, hereinafter “Hoshina”) in view of Moon (U.S. Patent Application 20080018726 A1) and further in view of Kaneda et al. (Japan Patent Application JPH08317021A, hereinafter “Kaneda”).
Regarding Claim 5, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 1. However, Hoshina as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the circuitry is further configured to:
perform an initial operation to detect a current position of the slider;
determine whether the current position of the slider is an abnormal position based on the initial operation based on the combination of the first sensor output and the second sensor output; and
perform a return operation to return the slider to a normal position in response to a determination that the slider is at the abnormal position.
Kaneda teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
perform an initial operation to detect a current position of the slider (par 0113 Fig 5 When the talk switch 308 is turned on, an upward movement of the slider 511 is [performed] and normally completed in about 0.5 seconds by the rotation control of the drive motor 601);
determine whether the current position of the slider is an abnormal position based on the initial operation based on the combination of the first sensor output and the second sensor output (par 0113 Fig 5 If the upward movement of the slider 511 is not completed within approximately one second after the talk switch 308 is turned on, that is, if both the position switches 421 and 422 are not turned on, it is expected that some abnormality has occurred); and
perform a return operation to return the slider to a normal position in response to a determination that the slider is at the abnormal position (par 0114 Fig 5 if the abnormal position was detected, the CPU controls the slider 511 to move down by rotating the drive motor in the reverse direction, returning it to its original, fully lowered state).
Hoshina Moon and Kaneda are analogous art as they each pertain to devices with slider position controls. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater of Hoshina/Moon with the inclusion of the slider position control of Kaneda. The motivation would have been in order to provide detection of abnormalities in slider control due to abnormal loads (Kaneda par 0014).
Regarding Claim 6, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 5, wherein,
in the initial operation, the circuitry is further configured to:
sequentially move the slider in one reciprocating movement (Kaneda paras 0113-0114 describe an up and down movement);
measures a switching time until the first sensor output and the second sensor output are switched (Kaneda par 0113 Fig 5 If the upward movement of the slider 511 is not completed within approximately one second after the talk switch 308 is turned on, that is, if both the position switches 421 and 422 are not turned on, it is expected that some abnormality has occurred); and
compare the switching time with a switching time during a normal operation to detect that the slider is at the abnormal position (Kaneda par 0113 Fig 5 If the upward movement of the slider 511 is not completed within approximately one second after the talk switch 308 is turned on, that is, if both the position switches 421 and 422 are not turned on, it is expected that some abnormality has occurred).
Hoshina Moon and Kaneda are analogous art as they each pertain to devices with slider position controls. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater of Hoshina/Moon with the inclusion of the slider position control of Kaneda. The motivation would have been in order to provide detection of abnormalities in slider control due to abnormal loads (Kaneda par 0014).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150210091 A1, hereinafter “Hoshina”) in view of Moon (U.S. Patent Application 20080018726 A1) and further in view of Nakano (U.S. Patent Application 20110059274 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 1. However, Hoshina as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the coater includes a belt in contact with the medium to fix the liquid onto the medium.
Nakano teaches the coater includes a belt in contact with the medium to fix the liquid onto the medium (par 0064 Fig 1 a layer formed by simply applying a liquid (such as a coating liquid) is made smooth by being subjected to a cooling-separation treatment using a cooling-separation-belt-fixing smoother apparatus 8).
Hoshina Moon and Nakano are analogous art as they each pertain to liquid coating devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater of Hoshina/Moon with the inclusion of the coating belt of Nakano. The motivation would have been in order to provide improved smoothness and glossiness of the surface of printed matter (Nakano par 0005).
Regarding Claim 10, Hoshina as modified teaches the liquid coater according to claim 1, wherein
the coater includes a belt in contact with the medium to fix the liquid onto the medium, and the belt includes a cooler to cool the medium (par 0064 Fig 1 a layer formed by simply applying a liquid (such as a coating liquid) is made smooth by being subjected to a cooling-separation treatment using a cooling-separation-belt-fixing smoother apparatus 8).
Hoshina Moon and Nakano are analogous art as they each pertain to liquid coating devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coater of Hoshina/Moon with the inclusion of the coating belt of Nakano. The motivation would have been in order to improve the smoothness and glossiness of the media surface (Nakano par 0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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:
Claim 8:
While closest prior art Hoshina (20150210091) and Moon (20080018726 A1 teach portions of the limitations of Claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 8, namely "wherein the two or more protrusions has (2 x n) number of protrusions, on both sides of the sensor feeler in the conveyance direction, along the width direction, where n is a natural number, and
a number of the multiple feeler sensors is identical to (2 x n) x 2 number of the two or more protrusions" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p EST.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624