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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 5-10) in the reply filed on 10/03/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for the subject matter of any one of the listed inventions would encompass each for the subject matter of the remaining inventions. This is not found persuasive because as set forth in the previous Restriction Requirements, each group is referring to different invention and classified in different art areas. Therefore, considering and searching for one group not necessarily required for the others. Searching for all mentioned groups would burden the examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “liquid ejection unit”, sheet ejection tray”, “switching mechanism”, and “an acquisition unit” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(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(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morisaki (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0081247).
Regarding claim 5: Morisaki discloses a liquid ejection apparatus comprising:
a sheet feeding tray on which a medium is placed, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown tray on feeder 100);
a transport unit transporting the medium placed on the sheet feeding tray (via the shown rollers on feeder 100);
a liquid ejection unit ejecting a liquid onto the medium based on print data (Fig. 1; via image forming section 3);
a sheet ejection tray on which the medium with the liquid ejected thereon by the liquid ejection unit is placed (Fig. 2; via tray 134 and/or Fig. 1, via trays shown in section 3);
a braking member braking the medium transported to the sheet ejection tray, see for example (Figs. 4, 7, 9; via the shown pressing mechanism 141/143 against documents 401);
a switching mechanism switching a position of the braking member (Figs. 7 and 9; via the shown controlling and moving mechanism of 141/143); and
an acquisition unit acquiring an index related to a state of the medium (Fig. 3; via 10 “Main Controller” and/or 150 “controller”),
wherein the switching mechanism sets the braking member in a first position for braking the medium or a second position different from the first position based on the index acquired by the acquisition unit, see for example (Figs. 7, and 9; via 141/142 set in two different positions; further, intended use limitations of the claimed “switching mechanism” in the apparatus claim are not given much patentable weight).
Regarding claim 6: wherein the acquisition unit acquires an ejection amount of the liquid ejected onto the medium based on the print data as the index, (inherently the control unit 10 and/or 150 controls the amount of the ejected ink based on what data is printed).
Regarding claim 7: wherein the switching mechanism sets the braking member in the first position when the ejection amount acquired by the acquisition unit is smaller than a predetermined ejection amount threshold, and sets the braking member in the second position when the ejection amount acquired by the acquisition unit is larger than the ejection amount threshold, see for example (Figs. 7 & 9; via the shown controlled and changed positions of 141/142)
Regarding claim 8: wherein the liquid ejection unit is configured to eject the liquid onto a first surface and a second surface of the medium,
when the liquid ejection unit ejects the liquid onto the first surface and the second surface of the medium, the acquisition unit acquires a double-side ejection amount of the liquid ejected onto the first surface and the second surface of the medium as the index, see for example (paragraph 0042; “in the case of double-sided document”),
when the double-side ejection amount acquired by the acquisition unit is smaller than a double-side ejection amount threshold different from the ejection amount threshold, the switching mechanism sets the braking member in the first position, (intended use of the claimed ejection unit not given much patentable weight), and
when the double-side ejection amount acquired by the acquisition unit (paragraph 0042 referring to the double-sided printed documents) is larger than the double-side ejection amount threshold, the switching mechanism sets the braking member in the second position (intended use and conditions of the ejection unit not given much patentable weight).
Regarding claim 9: wherein the acquisition unit acquires a type of the medium,
when the type of the medium acquired by the acquisition unit is a first type and the ejection amount acquired by the acquisition unit is smaller than an ejection amount threshold, the switching mechanism sets the braking member in the first position, and
when the type of the medium acquired by the acquisition unit is a second type different from the first type and the ejection amount acquired by the acquisition unit is smaller than a second ejection amount threshold different from the ejection amount threshold, the switching mechanism sets the braking member in the first position (intended use of the claimed “acquisition unit” and “switching mechanism” not given much patentable weight).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10: wherein the acquisition unit is a sensor that acquires a placement environment of the medium as the index, see for example (Figs. 2; via sensors 114-119).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731