DETAILED ACTION
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.
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: “unit,” “device” and “mechanism”.
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.
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
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai et al. (2013/0141484) in view of Nunokawa et al. (2003/0077098).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kasai teaches a printing apparatus and method for performing print jobs comprising:
a conveying mechanism (fig. 2, item 14) configured to convey a print medium (fig. 2, item S);
a printing unit (fig. 2, item 30) composed of a plurality of print heads (fig. 3, items 31) configured to perform printing on the print medium by ejecting ink (see fig. 2);
a cleaning mechanism (fig. 2, unlabeled maintenance device in maintenance area) configured to clean the printing unit;
an inspection device (fig. 2, item 70) configured to inspect a print image obtained by printing ([0081]);
a conveyance control unit (fig. 1, item 10) configured to control a conveyance speed at which the conveying mechanism conveys the print medium ([0063]);
a printing control unit (fig. 1, item 40) configured to control operations of the printing unit and the cleaning mechanism ([0077]); and
a maintenance content determination unit (fig. 1, item 104) configured to determine a maintenance content for the printing unit ([0133]),
a print medium supply unit (see fig. 2, note that such a unit must be present to feed medium S to conveyance unit 12/14) configured to supply the print medium to the printing unit;
wherein the conveyance control unit accelerates the print medium until the conveyance speed changes from 0 to a predetermined reference speed before printing based on each print job is started, conveys the print medium so that the conveyance speed of the print medium is kept at a constant speed including the reference speed at least in a period during which the printing based on the each print job is being executed, and decelerates the print medium until the conveyance speed changes from the constant speed to 0 after the printing based on the each print job is ended (note that this entire limitation is necessarily met because the medium needs to be transported at a constant speed for any images to be properly printed. That is, any operation other than the conveyance unit starting at 0 velocity, accelerating to a positive velocity, and decelerating to a 0 velocity would render a line-type printer unusable), each print job being information based on which of the plurality of print heads eject ink on the print medium to perform main printing on the print medium (note that this is necessarily the case),
wherein the printing control unit controls an operation of the printing unit so that at least one inspection pattern is printed on the print medium in a period during which the conveyance speed is being kept at the constant speed ([0081]),
wherein the maintenance content determination unit determines the maintenance content for the printing unit based on an inspection result obtained by inspecting the print image for the at least one inspection pattern by the inspection device, and
wherein the printing control unit controls the operations of the printing unit and the cleaning mechanism in accordance with the maintenance content determined by the maintenance content determination unit (see fig. 15, Note that the claimed “maintenance content” is being defined simply as whether or not maintenance is required. Thus, at S102, the maintenance content determination unit determines an ejection failure has been detected, i.e., whether maintenance is required).
Kasai does not teach a monitoring unit configured to detect an event by which the printing should be interrupted, wherein the monitoring unit detects, as the event by which the printing should be interrupted, an event in which an amount of the print medium remaining in the print medium supply unit is reduced to a predetermined value or less. Nunokawa teaches this (Nunokawa, [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the remaining medium checking-and-interrupting technique disclosed by Nunokawa to the device disclosed by Kasai because doing so would prevent the starting of print jobs when there was not enough remaining medium on which to finish a particular print job.
Upon combination of Nunokawa with Kasai, the resultant device would have a maintenance content determination unit that determines the maintenance content for the printing unit after an event in which an amount of the print medium remaining is reduced to a predetermined value or less. That is, it would have been obvious to perform maintenance operations during printing interruptions as doing so would increase throughput, so it would have been obvious to determine the maintenance content during an interruption due to a shortage or projected shortage of a print medium.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of Nunokawa as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (2018/0370227).
Regarding claim 2, Kasai in view of Nunokawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing control unit controls the operation of the printing unit so that a first inspection pattern and a second inspection pattern are printed as the inspection pattern in a period during which the conveyance speed is being kept at the constant speed (Kasai, note that any number of inspection patterns are printed as the conveyance speed is constant).
Kasai in view of Nunokawa does not teach wherein the first inspection pattern is printed before printing of a main image based on a processing target job is performed, the second inspection pattern is printed after the printing of the main image based on the processing target job is performed. Hayashi teaches this (Hayashi, fig. 6, Note main image F1 sandwiched by first and second inspection patterns C1, C2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print inspection patterns between images, as disclosed by Hayashi, in the device disclosed by Kasai in view of Nunokawa because doing so would reduce paper waste by printing inspection patterns on paper that would otherwise not contribute to image formation.
Upon application of the technique disclosed by Hayashi to the device disclosed by Kasai in view of Nunokawa, the resultant device would meet the limitation: when an event by which the printing should be interrupted is detected by the monitoring unit, the printing control unit controls the operation of the printing unit so that the second inspection pattern is printed after a sheet that is being printed, and the maintenance content determination unit determines the maintenance content for the printing unit based on the inspection result obtained by inspecting the print image for the second inspection pattern by the inspection device.
Regarding claim 3, Kasai in view of Nunokawa and Hayashi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the maintenance content determination unit determines the maintenance content for the printing unit after the inspection result obtained by inspecting the print image for the first inspection pattern by the inspection device is detected, by the monitoring unit, as an event by which the printing should be interrupted (Note that, upon combination of references, the limitation is met).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of Nunokawa as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hashimoto (2002/0074087).
Regarding claim 4, Kasai in view of Nunokawa and Hayashi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Kasai in view of Nunokawa does not teach wherein the print medium supply unit has an auto splicing function to automatically switch a roll paper with a reduced remaining amount to a new roll paper. Hashimoto teaches this (Hashimoto, [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the autosplicer disclosed by Hashimoto to the device disclosed by Kasai in view of Nunokawa because doing so would allow for changing over medium rolls without interrupting printing.
Upon combination of the references, the resultant device would meet the limitation:
and the printing control unit controls, while the printing on the new roll paper is being prepared, the operations of the printing unit and the cleaning mechanism in accordance with the maintenance content determined by the maintenance content determination unit.
That is, Nunokawa’s technique would register an event when the remaining amount of a print roll was low, and simultaneously thereafter, Hashimoto’s autosplicer would switch a new roll for a used on while Kasai’s maintenance content determination unit would determine maintenance content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights