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
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 head 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 head 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);
an acquisition unit acquiring an index related to a state of the medium (Fig. 3; via 10 “Main Controller” and/or 150 “controller”),
wherein, based on the index acquired by the acquisition unit, the braking member is selectively set to a first position for breaking the medium or a second position that is a position in which the braking member does not contact the medium, see for example (Figs. 7, and 9; via 141/142 set in two different positions to press or away from the medium 401 using the controlling and moving mechanism 141/143; 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 braking member is configured to be set in the first position when the ejection amount acquired by the acquisition unit is smaller than a predetermined ejection amount threshold, and the braking member is configured to be set 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 head is configured to eject the liquid onto a first surface and a second surface of the medium,
when the liquid ejection head 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 braking member is set 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 braking member is set 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 braking member is set 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Morisaki ‘247 does not suggest the amended claims referring to “a second position that is a position in which the braking member does not contact the medium”.
The Office as set forth above believes that ‘247 indeed shows the amended claim of having presser or braking member to be movable between two positions of which pressing on the medium and away from the medium, see for example (Fig. 9A; via roller 141 and pressing member 142 being away from medium 401 & Fig. 9B; via roller 141 and pressing member 142 placed against the medium 401).
Further, it is noted that the citation of “based on the index acquired by the acquisition unit, the braking member is selectively set to” are intended use limitations. 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.
Being that said, the Office believes that the applied art ‘247 do suggest the use of controller via 150 to control the movements of the pressing members 141/142 based on feedback and use of set of sensors 114, see for example (Fig. 3).
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 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
Prosecution Insights