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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed April 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Baird et al. US 20090257070 A1 and Hishida et al. US 20090219342 A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
“…the vibration suppressor comprises a plurality of vibration suppressors, and the vibration suppressors disposed at both ends of the movable guide of the movable unit and having different shapes” should read “…the vibration suppressor comprises a plurality of vibration suppressors,
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “holder … holding an object to be printed” in claim 1; and “vibration suppressor … holding the object to be printed” in claim 1.
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird et al. US 20090257070 A1 and Hishida et al. US 20090219342 A1.
Regarding claim 1,
a printing apparatus (Paragraph 0027, “The graphic image application system 46 preferably comprises an ink jet printer engine having a plurality of print heads”) comprising:
a printing head having a printing surface (Paragraph 0027, “The graphic image application system 46 preferably comprises an ink jet printer engine having a plurality of print heads”),
a movable unit connected to the fixing unit, having a movable guide disposed along the first direction, and being movable with respect to the printing head along a second direction, the second direction intersecting with the first direction (Paragraph 0034, “After each swath is applied, the paint or graphic image application device 46 is indexed or moved one swath-width along the rails 36, 38 of the flexible-rail positioning system 22”, wherein the flexible-rail positioning system 22 is the movable unit, and the rails 36 and 38 are the movable guides),
a holder disposed on the movable unit and holding an object to be printed along the first direction, the object to be printed being an object on which printing by the printing head is performed (Paragraph 0025, “The attachment components are spaced at intervals along each flexible rail for releasably attaching each rail to the surface of the airplane or other desired surface… Preferably, the attachment components 34 are in the form of vacuum suction cup assemblies”),
a vibration suppressor disposed on the movable unit and holding the object to be printed along the second direction (Paragraph 0025, “The attachment components are spaced at intervals along each flexible rail for releasably attaching each rail to the surface of the airplane or other desired surface… Preferably, the attachment components 34 are in the form of vacuum suction cup assemblies.” Suction cups in this case also function as vibration suppressors, as by holding to the object to be printed they suppress vibration).
Baird et al. does not expressly disclose a fixing unit connected to the printing head and having a fixing guide disposed along a first direction including the printing surface.
However, Hishida et al. teaches a carriage which has print heads fixed to it (Paragraph 0041, “Each of the print heads 62M, 62Y, 62C, 62K, 62T has a plurality of nozzles (not shown) capable of ejecting UV ink downwardly which are formed in the bottom surface thereof, and is fixed to the carriage 63…”). Furthermore, the carriage is shown to have a surface on which the print heads are fixed, corresponding to the fixing guide of the present application, disposed on a horizontal plane (Figure 2, Items 62 and 63). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baird et al. to have a fixing unit connected to the printing head and having a fixing guide disposed along a first direction in order to have that the print head is spaced apart from the object to be printed on by a predetermined gap, as taught by Hishida et al. (Paragraph 0041, “…such that the bottom surface is spaced apart from the print medium 2 by a predetermined gap”).
Regarding claim 2, Baird et al. teaches,
the vibration suppressor is disposed at both ends of the movable guide of the movable unit (Figure 3, Items 34. Note that the suction cups are present at both ends of the rail 36, which corresponds to the movable guide).
Regarding claim 6,
Baird et al. does not disclose that the printing head is fixed to the fixing unit
However, Hishida et al. teaches a set of print heads fixed to a carriage (Paragraph 0041, “Each of the print heads 62M, 62Y, 62C, 62K, 62T has a plurality of nozzles (not shown) capable of ejecting UV ink downwardly which are formed in the bottom surface thereof, and is fixed to the carriage 63…”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baird et al. to have that the printing head is fixed to the fixing unit in order to have that the print head is spaced apart from the object to be printed on by a predetermined gap, as taught by Hishida et al. (Paragraph 0041, “…such that the bottom surface is spaced apart from the print medium 2 by a predetermined gap”).
Regarding claim 8, Baird et al. teaches,
the vibration suppressor is disposed at an end of the movable guide of the movable unit (Figure 3, Items 34. Note that a suction cup is present at an end of the rail 36, which corresponds to the movable guide).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird et al. US 20090257070 A1 and Hishida et al. US 20090219342 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veis e al. US 20160167405 A1.
Regarding claim 3,
the vibration suppressor comprises a plurality of vibration suppressors (Figure 3, Items 34), and the vibration suppressors disposed at both ends of the movable guide of the movable unit (Figure 3, Items 34. Note that the suction cups are present at both ends of the rail 36, which corresponds to the movable guide).
Baird et al. does not disclose the vibration suppressors having different shapes.
However, Veis et al. teaches a suction cup sheet having multiple suction cups of different shapes (Figure 1, Items 40 and 42). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baird et al. to have that the vibration suppressors have different shapes in order to minimize the amount of suction cups and vacuum holes required to sufficiently secure a print media (Paragraph 0016, “The suction cups 40, 42 in arrays 50-54 and thus the corresponding vacuum holes 30 in table 18 are configured to minimize the number of vacuum holes 30 and suction cups 40, 42 needed to deliver the desired hold down forces to print media 16”), as each shape provides a particular benefit, as taught by Veis et al. (Paragraph 0021, “Testing indicates that, for the same vacuum line pressure, the hold down force applied by a circular suction cup 40 such as that shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 that is 10 mm-50 mm in diameter is more than 10 times greater than the hold down force applied by a vacuum hole 30 that is 2 mm-5 mm in diameter alone. Thus, significantly greater hold down forces may be applied through fewer vacuum holes. Oval suction cups 42 such as those shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 apply the increased hold down forces uniformly over a greater area compared to circular suction cups at the same radius”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 5, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for allowance of claim 4, is the inclusion of the limitations that the holding mechanism is movable from the front of the fixing guide and the movable guide to the fixing guide and the movable guide along a third direction, the third direction intersecting with each of the first direction and the second direction. These limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding dependent claim 5, allowability is based on its dependency from claim 4.
The primary reason for allowance of claim 7, is the inclusion of the limitations drawn to a carry-in unit to convey an object to be printed to the movable unit, a carry-out unit to receive an object to be printing that has been conveyed by the movable unit, and that the movable unit carries, to a carry-out unit, the object to be printed that has been conveyed by a carry-in unit. These limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rami Alshoroogi whose telephone number is (571)272-8946. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm.
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 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.
/RAMI A ALSHOROOGI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights