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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed on 3/4/25, the requirements 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) are met.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on a Form PTO 1449 have been considered.
Specification
The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (U.S. 2017/0320339 A1).
Matsumoto et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a unit (200, §0040 and Figs. 4-6) that is attachable to and detachable from a printing apparatus (1, §§0039-0040 and Figs. 1-3), the unit comprising:
a support (300, §§0046-0048 and Figs. 4-6) to support a printing medium,
the support comprising a water-absorbent material (301, §§0048, 0072 and Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the water-absorbent material is heat resistant (§0070).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the support is attachable to and detachable from the unit (§0051).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein a height of at least a part of the support is higher than a height of a frame of the unit (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 9, a joint (211, §0057 and Fig. 7) that is attachable to and detachable from a stage of the printing apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, a frame (211, §0057 and Figs. 4-7), at a bottom portion of the unit, to cover an outer edge of a stage (111, §0057 and Fig. 7) of the printing apparatus.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (U.S. 2017/0320339 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shino (U.S. 2007/0146464 A1).
Matsumoto et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 4, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which this claim depends).
Matsumoto et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the water-absorbent material comprises diatomaceous earth.
Shino discloses the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the water-absorbent material comprises diatomaceous earth (§§0063, 0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the water-absorbent material of Shino to the unit of Matsumoto et al. to utilize a known hydrophilic absorbent material.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (U.S. 2017/0320339 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of De Roeck et al. (U.S. 2018/0264851 A1).
Matsumoto et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 5, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which this claim depends).
Matsumoto et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the water-absorbent material comprises volcanic rock.
De Roeck et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the water-absorbent material comprises volcanic rock (§§0112, 0115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the water-absorbent material of De Roeck et al. to the unit of Matsumoto et al. to utilize a known ink-absorbent material. Please note that basalt fibre textiles, while a processed product made from volcanic rock, are similar in that regard to the teachings of §0075 of the instant Specification and therefore are regarded as reading on this limitation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (U.S. 2017/0320339 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JDM Innovation GmbH (DE 20 2015 008 163 U1).
Matsumoto et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 6, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which this claim depends);
wherein the support includes an absorbent sheet including a non-woven fabric (e.g. felt, §0072).
Matsumoto et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 6, wherein the support includes an absorbent sheet including a polymer absorbing agent.
JDM Innovation GmbH discloses the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 6, wherein the support includes a polymer absorbing agent (a superabsorbent polymer in combination with a nonwoven fabric, §0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the water-absorbent material of JDM Innovation GmbH to the unit of Matsumoto et al. to increase the absorptive capacity of the support.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (U.S. 2017/0320339 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwatsuki et al. (U.S. 2003/0197750 A1).
Matsumoto et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which this claim depends).
Matsumoto et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, wherein an end portion of a support surface of the support to support the printing medium has a slope shape or a round shape.
Iwatsuki et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 8, wherein an end portion of a support surface of the support to support the printing medium has a slope shape or a round shape (§§0076-77 and Fig. 7B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the shape of Iwatsuki et al. to the unit of Matsumoto et al. to avoid print defects due to fabric creasing or slacking at sharp corners.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 11 is the inclusion of the limitations of a unit including a clamping mechanism to clamp an outer edge of a stage of the printing apparatus. It is these limitations found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination of that has not been found, taught or suggested by prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV whose telephone number is (571)270-7049. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Rodrigues 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.
/ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights