DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/20/2026. Applicant argues searching the two inventions would not require a separate search. Applicant points to the many similarities of independent claims 1 and 8. Examiner maintains proper search of both inventions would result in separate searches. While many similar elements are included in both independent claims, claim 1 requires a stationary medium support unit and a stationary medium while no such requirement is present in claim 8. Seeing as how searching prior art having a movable support unit or conveyable medium would necessarily be required for the search of the invention according to claims 8-11, a search burden would necessarily result. Further, as noted by Applicant, claims 9-11 recites a number of specific areas not recited by the invention according to claims 1-7 and 12. These areas would also necessitate search not required by the originally presented invention. The Requirement is maintained.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant is welcome to incorporate features from any of the withdrawn claims into independent claim 1 for further examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites wherein the detection units are provided on two sides of the head with respect to the second direction, but it would seem that one thing can be provided on a first side of another thing in a direction, not with respect to that direction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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. The claim recites a standby position, but claim 6, from which claim 12 depends, also recites a standby position. While it is believed the two are intended to refer to the same position, clarification is required. Further, it appears several of the limitations of claim 12 are similar to but not the same as those in claim 6.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (9,022,516) in view of Castillo et al. (2011/0279507).
Regarding claim 1, Mizutani teaches a printing apparatus comprising:
a medium support unit (fig. 1, item 23/24) including a support surface (fig. 1, note surfaces of rollers 23/24) configured to support a medium;
a head (fig. 1, item 31) configured to eject liquid to the medium supported by the support surface (see fig. 1);
a first moving unit (col. 6, lines 18-21) configured to move the head in a first direction parallel to the support surface (col. 6, lines 18-21, note that the first direction is being taken to be the left-right direction);
a second moving unit (col. 6, lines 18-21) configured to move the head in a second direction, the second direction being parallel to the support surface and intersecting the first direction (col. 6, lines 18-21, note that the second direction is being taken to be the front-rear direction);
a first interference detection unit (fig. 11, top, left item 52b) configured to detect interference between the head and the medium when the head is moved in the second direction (see fig. 11); and
a second interference detection unit (fig. 11, top, right item 52b) configured to detect interference between the head and the medium when the head is moved in the second direction (see fig. 11),
neither the medium support unit nor the medium is moved in either the first direction or the second direction (see fig. 10, note that there are times, e.g. standby times, off times, times between movements, where all components remain stationary)
wherein the first interference detection unit and the second interference detection unit are linked to movement of the head in the second direction (see fig. 11, note that sensors 52 move in all directions with the head/carriage),
the first interference detection unit is provided further on a first side of the head with respect to the second drection (see fig. 11), and
the second interference detection unit is provided
Mizutani does not teach a position adjusting unit configured to adjust a distance between the head and the support surface in a third direction intersecting the support surface. Castillo teaches this (Castillo, [0052], Note that the printhead is movable in a third direction away from and toward the media support). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a gap adjustment mechanism of the type disclosed by Castillo to the device of Mizutani because doing so would allow for lifting of the printhead to allow for an irregular medium to pass without contacting the printhead.
Regarding claim 2, Mizutani in view of Castillo teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a carriage configured to support the head, wherein the carriage is movable in the first direction, and includes a first end on the first side in the second direction (Mizutani, fig. 11, left side of carriage on page), and the a second end on the second side in the second direction (Mizutani, fig. 11, right side of carriage on page) on the other side in the second direction, the first interference detection unit is provided further on the first side of the carriage in the second direction, and the second interference detection unit is provided further on the second side of the carriage in the second direction (Mizutani, see fig. 11, Note first and second detection units 52b on both sides of the carriage 42).
Regarding claim 3, Mizutani in view of Castillo teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first interference detection unit includes a first light emission unit and a first light reception unit, and detects interference with the head based on whether light emitted from the first light emission unit is received by the first light reception unit, the second interference detection unit includes a second light emission unit and a second light reception unit, and detects interference with the head based on whether light emitted from the second light emission unit is received by the second light reception unit, the first light emission unit is provided further on one side than the support surface in the first direction, the first light reception unit is provided further on the other side than the support surface in the first direction, the second light emission unit is provided further on the other side than the support surface in the first direction, and the second light reception unit is provided further on one side than the support surface in the first direction (Mizutani, see fig. 11, Note that there is one light emission unit 52a and one light reception unit 52b on each side of the head 31 in the second direction).
Regarding claim 4, Mizutani in view of Castillo teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a distance between an optical axis of the second interference detection unit and the support surface in the third direction is smaller than a distance between an optical axis of the first interference detection unit and the support surface in the third direction (Note that, upon combination of the references, the distances between the optical axes and the support surface can change when the gap is changed, thereby meeting the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Mizutani in view of Castillo teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first interference detection unit and the second interference detection unit are supported by the second moving unit (Mizutani, Note that the detection units are supported by sensor mounting member 47, which is supported by the carriage 42, which is necessarily supported by the second moving unit to be able to move in the second direction).
Regarding claim 6, Mizutani in view of Castillo teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit configured to control the first moving unit, the second moving unit and the position adjusting unit, wherein the head is configured to standby in a standby position, the standby position is located on the other side than the support surface in the second direction, when the first interference detection unit detects interference with the head when the head is moved to the one side in the second direction, the control unit controls the position adjusting unit to increase the distance between the support surface and the head, and when the second interference detection unit detects interference with the head when the head is moved to the other side in the second direction, the control unit determines that there is an error (Castillo, figs. 2, 6, [0052], Note that, when the medium is determined to be irregular, either the printhead can be lifted so as to not contact the medium, or an error can be determined, and the medium can be diverted from the medium feed path).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani in view of Castillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knauf et al. (10,328,725).
Regarding claim 7, Mizutani in view of Castillo teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Mizutani in view of Castillo does not teach wherein an optical axis of the second interference detection unit is lower than an optical axis of the first interference detection unit in the third direction. Knauf teaches interference detection units with a number of different optical axes in the third direction (Knauf, see fig. 2, Note optical axes corresponding to light receiving units 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the detection units disclosed by Mizutani in view of Castillo at different positions in the third direction, as disclosed by Knauf because doing so would allow for detecting interference at several heights, thereby allowing for more precise detection of the level of interference.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani in view of Castillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (11,117,390).
Regarding claim 12, Mizutani in view of Castillo teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein
the head is configured to standby in a standby position,
the standby position is located on the second side of the support surface with respect to the second direction,
the first interference detection unit detects interference between the head and the medium in a first area when the head is moved to the first side in the second direction from the standby position to a first initial movement position,
the first area is a region between a first reference position and a second reference position,
when the head is arranged at the standby position, the first interference detection unit is arranged at the first reference position,
when the head is arranged at the first initial movement position, the first interference
detection unit is arranged at the second reference position and the second interference detection unit is arranged at the first reference position,
the second interference detection unit detects interference between the head and the medium in a second area different from the first area when the head is moved to the second side in the second direction from the first initial movement position to a second initial movement position,
the second area is a region between the first reference position and a medium accommodation position,
the medium accommodation position is a position where the medium placed on the medium support unit is accommodated, and
when the head is arranged at the second initial movement position, the second interference detection unit is arranged at the medium accommodation position (Castillo, figs. 2, 6, [0052], Note that, when the medium is determined to be irregular, either the printhead can be lifted so as to not contact the medium, or an error can be determined, and the medium can be diverted from the medium feed path).
Given the 112 issues noted above, Examiner is not sure all of claimed areas/positions are disclosed by Mizutani in view of Castillo. As such, Yamashita is now incorporated. Yamashita, Figures 2-4 appear show all areas claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the housing and supporting components of a textile printer in the manner disclosed by Yamashita with the detection units of Mizutani in view of Castillo because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In other words, because Mizutani in view of Castillo focuses on the detection elements, it would have been obvious to look to Yamashita for the basic structure and relative positions of a printer housing, a carriage and carriage movement path and a medium support unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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