DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the other side” lacks antecedent basis. 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 1 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 two interference detection units that “detect interference with” a head, but it is not clear how a detector can detect such a thing. That is, it is not clear from the claim what constitutes “interference,” and without any specifying language, the claim is indefinite. Correction is required.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim 2 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 specific side “in the second direction,” but a side does not itself have a direction. Correction is required.
Claim 3 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 wherein each interference detection unit has two components, those two components on opposite sides of the head in the second direction, but according to claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, all of the first interference detection unit is on one side of the head in the second direction, and all of the second interference detection unit is on another side of the head in the second direction, and thus claim 3 is at odds with claim 1. Correction is required.
Because claim 4 depends from claim 3, it is also rejected on this basis.
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 with the head (see fig. 11); and
a second interference detection unit (fig. 11, top, right item 52b) configured to detect interference with the head (see fig. 11),
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 one side than the head in the second direction (see fig. 11), and
the second interference detection unit is provided further on the other side than the head in the second direction (see fig. 11).
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 one end on one side (Mizutani, fig. 11, left side of carriage on page) in the second direction, and the other end (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 other side than the one end of the carriage in the second direction, and the second interference detection unit is provided on the one side than the other end 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).
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, 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853