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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the support supportable a distance detector at a position facing the head in the discharge direction” unclear due to its very poor grammar that precludes a clear understanding of the meets and bounds of the claim. As such it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3 the phrase “wherein the conveyer is placeable a plate on the conveyance surface” is unclear due to its very poor grammar that precludes a clear understanding of the meets and bounds of the claim. As such it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the claims are being interpreted as follows;
Regarding claim 1, “the support able to support a distance detector at a position facing the head in the discharge direction”
Regarding claim 3, “Wherein the conveyor isable to have a plate placed on the conveyance surface,”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulacia et al. (WO 2019199302 A1) in view of Terai (US 20230150282 A1).
Regarding claim 1, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Ulacia et al. teaches a head (Fig. 1 element 150 and paragraph [0009]) having a nozzle surface having nozzles to discharge a liquid onto a medium in a discharge direction (Fig. 1 element 165 and paragraph [0009]), a conveyor to convey the medium to the head along a conveyance surface in a conveyance direction (Fig. 1 element 140 and paragraph [0001]), a lifter to move the head in the discharge direction (Fig. 1 element 100 and paragraph [0011]) and the distance detector to detect a distance (Fig. 2 element 205 and paragraph [0013]).
Ulacia et al. fails to teach the conveyor including a pair of conveyance guides on an upstream side and a downstream side of the head in the conveyance direction, a support between the pair of conveyance guides in the conveyance direction, the support is able to support a distance detector at a position facing the head in the discharge direction.
Terai teaches the conveyor (Fig. 4 element 17) including a pair of conveyance guides on an upstream side and a downstream side of the head in the conveyance direction (Fig. 4 elements 17e and 17d), a support between the pair of conveyance guides in the conveyance direction (Fig. 7 element 22 ), the support supportable a distance detector at a position facing the head in the discharge direction (Fig. 7 element 30, Fig. 4 and paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Ulacia et al. with the position of rollers in Terai as it is well known in the art of printers to position rollers in such fashion.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Ulacia et al. with the sensor position and supports of Terai as a simple substitution of one sensor location for another to allow the sensor to be permanently in the printer instead of it temporarily replacing a head as is taught by Ulacia et al. (paragraph [0010]).
The examiner notes that the limitations that the distance detector detects a first and second distance and the lifter moving the head according to the first distance from the distance detector to the conveyance surface of the conveyor; and the second distance from the distance detector to the nozzle surface of the head are intended use according to MPEP 2114 II. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” and “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”. Since the combination of Ulacia et al. and Terai teach all the structural elements of the claim as stated above they anticipate the claim.
Regarding claim 2, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Ulacia et al and Terai teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Terrai teaches the distance detector supported by the support (Fig. 7 elements 22 and 30 and paragraph [0072])
Regarding claim 3, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Ulacia et al. and Terai teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and the examiner notes that the limitations that the conveyor is able to have a plate placed on the conveyance surface and the plate having a strength in which a deflection of the plate by weight of the plate is equal to or smaller than a resolution of measurement by the distance detector are intended use and hold no patentable weight according to MPEP 2115 “”[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)”. As such since Ulacia et al. and Terai teach all the structural elements of the claim it also anticipates this claim. Furthermore, the examiner notes that Ulacia does teach the use of a metal plate (Fig. 3 element 345 and paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Ulacia et al. and Terai teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Terai teaches wherein the distance detector is at a position corresponding to any one of the lifter; both ends of the head; or a center of the head (Fig. 7 and 4 element 30 wherein the sensor appears to correspond to the center of the print head in a width direction).
Regarding claim 5, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Ulacia et al. and Terai teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Ulacia et al teaches a head unit (Fig. 3 element 130 and paragraph [0009]) including multiple heads including the head of the liquid discharge apparatus (Fig. 1 element 150 and paragraph [0009]) and the head unit discharges the liquid from the heads onto the medium to form an image on the medium (paragraph [0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the method steps as claimed alone or in combination with particularly including installing a plate on the pair of conveyance guides on an upstream side and a downstream side of the head in the conveyance direction; measuring a first distance from a distance detector to the plate; removing the plate from on the pair of conveyance guides; measuring a second distance from the distance detector to a nozzle surface of the head; and moving the head in the discharge direction according to the first distance and the second distance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Niiyama (US 20210078340 A1) and Goda et al. (US 20220169016 A1) are cited for having a similar structure and method to the claimed apparatus and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights