DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitations “a moving unit”, “a control unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the moving unit as disclosed in Paragraph [0031] of the applicant’s specification as “a mechanism that individually moves the printhead 2A, the printhead 2B, the printhead 2C, and the printhead 2D between a printing position and a retracted position” and a control unit as disclosed in Paragraph [0033] in applicant’s specification as “The control unit 402 is an electronic circuit (for example, a personal computer) that controls the printing apparatus 1”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 of this title, 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, 5-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen US2004/0085383 in view of Motohashi JP2020168804 provided in the applicant’s information disclosure statement.
As per Claim 1, Rasmussen teaches a printing apparatus comprising:
a moving unit configured to individually move each of printheads between a printing position at which a liquid is discharged to a print medium and (Rasmussen, Paragraph [0016], “a signal may be sent to the control mechanism attached to the print heads, such as motors, which represents the amount of movement necessary for any or all of the print heads. Preferably, the print heads may be mounted in carriages that are configured to traverse a width of the print receiving medium, or some portion thereof, while the medium is transported in a longitudinal direction beneath the linear or staggered array of print heads. One method of determining the amount of movement necessary in the print heads is to determine the current position, determine the desired position, and to determine the amount and direction of movement necessary of the print heads”)
a control unit configured to control the moving unit so as to, before execution of a top print job among a plurality of print jobs, move a printhead to be used in the top print job and a printhead to be used in a print job after the top print job from the
wherein the control unit is configured to control the moving unit so as to, during execution of a first print job among the plurality of print jobs, move a printhead to be used in a second print job after the first print job from the
Rasmussen does not explicitly teach a retracted position apart from the print medium as compared to the printing position; and a retracted position
Rasmussen teaches a retracted position apart from the print medium as compared to the printing position; and a retracted position (Motohashi, Paragraph [0030]-[0031] and [0046]-[0047])
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Motohashi into Rasmussen because by utilizing a retracted position for unused printheads of Rasmussen will position the unused printheads in a position to not obstruct or hinder the movement of a printhead being used.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the two references to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
As per Claim 5, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to be capable of executing second movement control to start movement of a printhead not used in a third print job among the plurality of print jobs from the printing position to the retracted position if a print job before the third print job is ended. (Motohashi, Paragraph [0066]-[0068])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 6, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 5, wherein if the printhead not used in the third print job is used in a fourth print job after the third print job, the control unit is configured to be capable of executing control to cause the printhead to stand by at the printing position in the third print job. (Motohashi, Paragraph [0066]-[0068])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 7, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 1, further comprising a conveying unit configured to convey the print medium, wherein the control unit is configured to perform comparing a conveyance amount of the print medium conveyed during movement of a printhead with a conveyance amount of the print medium conveyed by executing a remaining printing in the first print job, and executing the first movement control based on a result of the comparing. (Motohashi, Paragraph [0021]-[0022] and Rasmussen, Paragraph [0016], [0025])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 8, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 1, further comprising a conveying unit configured to convey the print medium, wherein the control unit is configured to perform comparing a conveyance amount of the print medium conveyed during movement of a printhead with a conveyance amount of the print medium conveyed by executing the top print job, and executing the initial movement control based on a result of the comparing. (Motohashi, Paragraph [0021]-[0022] and Rasmussen, Paragraph [0016], [0025])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 9, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 5, further comprising a conveying unit configured to convey the print medium, wherein if the printhead not used in the third print job is used in a fourth print job after the third print job, the control unit is configured to perform comparing a conveyance amount of the print medium conveyed during reciprocal movement of the printhead between the printing position and the retracted position with a conveyance amount of the print medium conveyed until execution of the fourth print job, and executing the second movement control based on a result of the comparing. (Motohashi, Paragraph [0066]-[0068] and [0021]-[0022])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 10, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of print jobs are continuously executed, and the conveying unit is configured to continuously convey the print medium during execution of the plurality of print jobs. (Rasmussen, Paragraph [0016], [0025])
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 13, Claim 13 claims a control method of a printing apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
As per Claim 14, Claim 14 claims a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Motohashi, Paragraph [0006]) configured to, for controlling a printing apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen US2004/0085383 in view of Motohashi JP2020168804 provided in the applicant’s information disclosure statement as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Niimi et al. US2010/0245461 hereinafter referred to as Niimi.
As per Claim 2, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 1, wherein the printhead moved by the first movement control is a printhead
Rasmussen in view of Motohashi does not explicitly teach configured to discharges a liquid of a type not used during execution of the first print job.
Niimi teaches configured to discharges a liquid of a type not used during execution of the first print job. (Niimi, Paragraph [0032], [0063], the use of white ink to be discharged for cleaning the print heads)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Niimi into Rasmussen in view of Motohashi because by ejecting a white ink with the unused printheads will allow the printheads to be cleaned prior to be used to render a printed product accurately.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 2.
As per Claim 3, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 1, wherein movement of the printhead in the first movement control is started
Rasmussen in view of Motohashi does not explicitly teach until discharge of the liquid to the print medium in the first print job is ended. (Niimi, Paragraph [0032], [0063], the use of white ink to be discharged for cleaning the print heads)
Niimi teaches until discharge of the liquid to the print medium in the first print job is ended. (Niimi, Paragraph [0032], [0063], the use of white ink to be discharged for cleaning the print heads)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Niimi into Rasmussen in view of Motohashi because by ejecting a white ink with the unused printheads will allow the printheads to be cleaned prior to be used to render a printed product accurately.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 3.
As per Claim 4, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi teaches the apparats according to claim 1, further comprising: a first printing unit including a printhead
a second printing unit arranged on a downstream side in a conveyance direction of the print medium with respect to the first printing unit and including printheads which do not include a printhead
Rasmussen in view of Motohashi does not explicitly teach configured to discharge a white liquid; and
Niimi teaches configured to discharge a white liquid; and (Niimi, Paragraph [0032], [0063], the use of white ink to be discharged for cleaning the print heads)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Niimi into Rasmussen in view of Motohashi because by ejecting a white ink with the unused printheads will allow the printheads to be cleaned prior to be used to render a printed product accurately.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen US2004/0085383 in view of Motohashi JP2020168804 provided in the applicant’s information disclosure statement and in view of Niimi et al. US2010/0245461 hereinafter referred to as Niimi as applied to Claim 4 and further in view of Suzuki US2017/0111525.
As per Claim 11, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi and Niimi teaches the apparats according to claim 4,
Rasmussen in view of Motohashi and Niimi does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to calculate, for each of a plurality of types of orders of execution of the plurality of print jobs, a standby time in which each printhead is located at the printing position in a print job in which the printhead is not used, and output a calculation result of the standby time.
Suzuki teaches wherein the control unit is configured to calculate, for each of a plurality of types of orders of execution of the plurality of print jobs, a standby time in which each printhead is located at the printing position in a print job in which the printhead is not used, and output a calculation result of the standby time. (Suzuki, Paragraph [0062], “In calculating the print time, the standby time before executing the printing process may be calculated according to the process state of the print job”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Suzuki into Rasmussen in view of Motohashi and Niimi because by computing standby time will provide indication to the user on the amount of time to execute the next print job in the queue of the print system of Rasmussen in view of Motohashi and Niimi.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the four references to obtain the invention in Claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen US2004/0085383 in view of Motohashi JP2020168804 provided in the applicant’s information disclosure statement, Niimi et al. US2010/0245461 hereinafter referred to as Niimi and Suzuki US2017/0111525 as applied to Claim 11 and further in view of Truong US2020/0272389.
As per Claim 12, Rasmussen in view of Motohashi, Niimi and Suzuki teaches the apparats according to claim 11,
Rasmussen in view of Motohashi, Niimi and Suzuki does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to execute the plurality of print jobs in an order of execution selected by a user among the plurality of types of orders of execution.
Truong teaches wherein the control unit is configured to execute the plurality of print jobs in an order of execution selected by a user among the plurality of types of orders of execution. (Truong, Paragraph [0003], “printing controllers may also permit a user to arbitrarily change the order of printing jobs in the print queue”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Truong into Rasmussen in view of Motohashi, Niimi and Suzuki because by providing means to the user to manipulate a print queue will allow the user to set print jobs in an order desirable by the user.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the five references to obtain the invention in Claim 12.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-12 contain the term “apparats”. For consistency, it should read “apparatus” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights