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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a region of the conveyance member located on a lower surface of the recording medium" (emphasis added) in lines 2-3, making the claim indefinite since it reads as if the conveyance member is part of a lower surface of the recording medium, instead of being located under a lower surface of the recording medium. Claims 3-4 depend on claim 2 and are therefore rejected the same way.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein the hardware processor provides the alert" in line 1, making the claim indefinite since providing an alert was an option in claim 1 not needed in order for the claim to be met as written.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a cleaner that cleans the conveyance member to
control an operation of the conveyance member that conveys the recording medium" in lines 3-4, making the claim unclear since it reads as if the cleaner was capable of controlling an operation of the conveyance member. The claim needs to be amended to make clear that the program causes the computer to control the conveyance member.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yumoto et al. (US 2023/0057854 – hereinafter Yumoto) in view of Yamada et al. (US 2022/0243392 – hereinafter Yamada.)
Regarding claim 1,
Yumoto discloses an inkjet recording apparatus [1 in fig. 2], comprising:
a hardware processor [10 in fig. 1] that controls a conveyance operation of a conveyance member [14 in figs. 1 and 2] that conveys a recording medium [M in fig. 2; paragraphs 0021-0022];
a head unit [13 in fig. 2] that forms an image by ejecting an ink onto the recording medium on the conveyance member [paragraphs 0030-0032]; and
a cleaner [30 in fig. 2] that cleans the conveyance member [paragraph 0035],
wherein the hardware processor, when instructed to stop the conveyance operation of the conveyance member [at the end of the printing operation], executes a cleaning mode in which conveyance of the conveyance member is continued to cause the cleaner to clean the conveyance member [paragraphs 0035-0037], or stops conveyance of the conveyance member to provide an alert that there is a possibility that foreign matter is adhering to the conveyance member [please note that only one of the options is necessary for the limitation to be met as written.]
Yumoto fails to expressly disclose the ink containing a binder resin.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses an inkjet recording apparatus [100 in fig. 1], comprising:
a hardware processor [1 in fig. 2] that controls a conveyance operation of a conveyance member [20 in fig. 2] that conveys a recording medium [paragraph 0022];
a head unit [42 in fig. 1] that forms an image by ejecting an ink containing a binder resin onto the recording medium on the conveyance member [paragraphs 0012 and 0040]; and
a cleaner [58 in fig. 1] that cleans the conveyance member [paragraph 0046.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yumoto invention to include means for ejecting an ink containing a binder resin as taught by Yamada for the purpose of providing superior durability and color adhesion to the printed material.
Regarding claim 2,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein, in the cleaning mode, the hardware processor causes the conveyance member to be conveyed such that a region of the conveyance member located on a lower surface of the recording medium on which the image is formed is cleaned by the cleaner [paragraph 0035-0036.]
Regarding claim 3,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein in the cleaning mode, the hardware processor causes the conveyance member to be conveyed to the cleaner at least as far as an upstream end in a conveyance direction of the region [paragraphs 0035-0036.]
Regarding claim 4,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein
the cleaner includes a plurality of cleaning members [note wiping section 31 in fig. 2; paragraphs 0023 and 0044], and
in the cleaning mode, the hardware processor conveys the region until the region passes through at least one of the plurality of cleaning members [paragraphs 0035-0037; as seen in fig. 2.]
Regarding claim 5,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the hardware processor executes the cleaning mode when image formation under predetermined conditions is ended and the stop is instructed [paragraph 0035.]
Regarding claim 6,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the predetermined conditions indicate that at least one of a case where the recording medium is a thin cloth [paragraph 0021], a case where borderless printing is performed, and a case where high-coverage printing is performed is satisfied [please note that only one option is needed for the limitation to be met as written.]
Regarding claim 7
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the predetermined conditions are settable by a user [paragraphs 0082 and 0132.]
Regarding claim 8,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the hardware processor provides the alert after cancellation of an error stop or an emergency stop of the conveyance member, and executes the cleaning mode in response to a user instruction [implicit from paragraphs 0075-0076, 0122, and 0127; also note that claim 1 recites the hardware processor stopping conveyance of the conveyance member being an optional limitation not necessary to be met as written.]
Regarding claim 9,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses the inkjet recording apparatus further comprising:
a detector [12 in figs. 2-3] that is capable of detecting foreign matter [glue surface GS in fig. 3] on a placement surface of the conveyance member [paragraph 0041],
wherein the hardware processor provides the alert when the detector has detected the foreign matter [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 10,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the conveyance member is a conveyance belt [20 in fig. 2; paragraph 0022.]
Regarding claim 11,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein an adhesive is applied to a placement surface of the conveyance belt, the placement surface being a side on which a recording medium is placed [paragraphs 0026 and 0028.]
Regarding claim 12,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the conveyance member includes a plurality of conveyance rollers [14a / 14b in fig. 2; paragraph 0022.]
Regarding claim 13,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the ink is a pigment ink [paragraph 0030-0033.]
Regarding claim 15,
In the obvious combination, Yumoto further discloses wherein the cleaner includes a brush roller [paragraphs 0036 and 0038.]
Regarding claim 16,
The steps executed by a computer and caused by a program stored in non-transitory computer readable recording medium are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yumoto as modified by Yamada.
Regarding claim 14,
Yumoto as modified by Yamada discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the binder resin is added in an amount of 5% by mass to 15% by mass relative to a total amount of the ink.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the binder resin added in an amount of 5% by mass to 15% by mass relative to a total amount of the ink, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. One would have been motivated to optimize the amount of binder resin in order to achieve an optimal balance between stable ink viscosity and strong substrate adhesion, ensuring the ink is fluid enough for consistent printing, while being durable enough to resist rubbing.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 X 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853