DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/9/2026. The Requirements for Election of Species listing figures not included in the current application should be disregarded and are widthdraw.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the moving speed of the conveyed object” lacks antecedent basis because claims 1 and 11, from which claims 12 and 14 depend, require only that one of a number of values including a moving speed can be detected. That is, if a position is detected instead of speed, the speed is not detected, and there is no antecedent basis for the claimed moving speed. Further, “the imaging cycle,” “the relative pixel number,” “the pitch of the pixels,” “the relative position,” and “the magnification of the area sensor,” and “the area sensor” lack 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.
Claims 12 and 14 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. The claims recite “the relative position,” but it is not clear as to what exactly this is intended to refer. Further, the claims recite “the area sensor,” but to that point in the claims, no such sensor has been recited, and it is unclear as to what this term is intended to refer. Further, the terms “the imaging cycle” and “the relative pixel number” could mean any number of things and have not been defined with any specificity.
Clarification is required.
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, 2, 5-9, 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano (9,004,671) in view of Otsuka (7,104,710).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 15, Sakano teaches a liquid ejection apparatus and method, comprising:
a liquid ejection head unit (fig. 4, item 10) configured to eject liquid onto a conveyed object (fig. 1, item P) that is being conveyed;
a plurality of support members (fig. 4, items 253, 254), the liquid ejection head unit being provided between two consecutive support members of the plurality of support members (see fig. 4), the two consecutive support members being consecutive in a conveying direction (fig. 4, note arrow) of the conveyed object;
a detection unit (fig. 4, item 32) configured to output a detection result indicating at least one of a position, a moving speed, and an amount of movement of the conveyed object in the conveying direction of the conveyed object (col. 7, lines 21-55, note that position of the object is obtained); and
a control unit (fig. 2, item 100) configured to control the liquid ejection head unit that is provided on a downstream side of the detection unit to eject the liquid based on the detection result (col. 7, lines 21-55),
wherein a first support member of the two consecutive support members is arranged at an upstream side of a landing position of the liquid ejected onto the conveyed object by the liquid ejection head unit in the conveying direction (see fig. 4),
a second support member of the two consecutive support members is arranged at a downstream side of the landing position of the liquid ejected onto the conveyed object by the liquid ejection head unit in the conveying direction (see fig. 4), the second support member is provided in immediate succession downstream of the first support member in the conveying direction (see fig. 4),
wherein an entire body of the detection unit is positioned on the upstream side of the landing position of the liquid ejected onto the conveyed object (see fig. 4), and
the detection unit is positioned at a downstream side of the first support member of the two consecutive support members and at an upstream side of the second support member of the two consecutive support members (see fig. 4), wherein the detection unit is positioned closer to the first support member than the second support member (see fig. 4).
Sakano does not teach wherein the detection unit is positioned across from the liquid ejection head unit and below the conveyed object. Otsuka teaches this (Otsuka, see fig. 11, Note that sensor 710 is across from head 1 and below the conveyed object 1007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a sensor below the medium, as disclosed by Otsuka, instead of above the medium, as disclosed by Sakano, because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known sensor positioning for another to obtain predictable results.
Further, according to MPEP 2144, a rearrangement of parts is not patentable if such a rearrangement does not modify the operation of the prior art device. Here, whether the sensor is positioned above of below the print medium does not modify the operation of the device. Rather, it appears the positioning of the sensor is simply a matter of design choice based on space limitations within the liquid discharging apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of liquid ejection head units (Sakano, fig. 4, items 10, 11), wherein each respective liquid ejection head unit of the plurality of liquid ejection head units is provided between a corresponding first support member and a corresponding second support member from among the plurality of support members for the respective liquid ejection head unit (Sakano, see fig. 4, note that each head has an upstream support member and a downstream support member), the corresponding second support member being a consecutive support member from the corresponding first support member and that is provided on a downstream side in the conveying direction of the conveyed object of the respective liquid ejection head unit (Sakano, see fog. 4), wherein the corresponding first support member of the respective liquid ejection head unit is arranged at an upstream side of the landing position of the liquid ejected onto the conveyed object by the respective liquid ejection head unit in the conveying direction, and the corresponding second support member of the respective liquid ejection head unit is arranged at the downstream side of the landing position of the liquid ejected onto the conveyed object by the respective liquid ejection head unit in the conveying direction (Sakano, see fig. 4, Note that each head has upstream and downstream support members and a detection unit upstream of its landing position in between the landing position and its first support member in the conveyance direction).
Regarding claim 5, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to 1, wherein the conveyed object is a long sheet extending along the conveying direction (Sakano, see fig. 1, Note that sheets P are long and extend in the conveying direction and the width direction. Note that “long” has not been defined).
Regarding claim 6, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit is installed at a position further upstream toward the first support member than the landing position of the liquid ejected by the liquid ejection head unit (Sakano, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to 1, wherein the control unit generates a corresponding ejection timing for the liquid ejection head unit based on the detection result for the liquid ejection head unit (Sakano, col. 7, lines 21-55, Note that ejection timing is necessarily generated in correspondence with all information about the positioning and speed of the medium with respect to the head).
Regarding claim 8, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control unit generates the ejection timing for the liquid ejection head unit by calculating a required time for conveying the conveyed object to the landing position of the liquid ejection head unit based on the detection result for the liquid ejection head unit (Sakano, col. 7, lines 21-55, Again, note that ejection timing is necessarily generated in correspondence with all information about the positioning and speed of the medium with respect to the head. That is, if the claimed limitation is not met, the printer is nonfunctional).
Regarding claim 9, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a measuring unit configured to measure the amount of movement of the conveyed object; wherein the control unit controls the liquid ejection head unit to eject the liquid based on the amount of movement measured by the measuring unit and the detection result.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the detection unit calculates the moving speed of the conveyed object based on the following equation: V=[{ (K+J) xL} / Vi] / T -11 wherein V represents the moving speed, T represents the imaging cycle at which an image is captured, K represents the relative pixel number, L represents the pitch of the pixels, J represents the relative position, and i represents the magnification of the area sensor (Sakano, col. 7, lines 21-55, see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of liquid ejection head units includes a first liquid ejection head unit (Sakano, fig. 4, item 10) that ejects an liquid of a first color, and a second liquid ejection head unit (Sakano, fig. 4, item 11) that ejects a liquid of a second color, the first color being different from the second color (Sakano, col. 3, lines 49-67).
Regarding claim 17, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first support member includes a first curved portion at which the conveyed object comes into contact with the first support member, and the second support member includes a second curved portion at which the conveyed object comes into contact with the second support member (Sakano, see fig. 4, Note that all defined support members have curved portions).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakano in view of Otsuka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Srinivasan et al. (2008/0150989).
Regarding claim 3, Sakano in view of Otsuka teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 1. Sakano in view of Otsuka does not teach wherein the detection unit obtains the detection result based on a pattern included in the conveyed object; and detects at least one of the position, the moving speed, and the amount of movement of the conveyed object with respect to the liquid ejection head unit based on at least two detections of the pattern obtained at least two different times. Srinivasan teaches this (Srinivasan, [0062], Note that the amount of movement and the position must be known for the analysis. Note that the pattern is detected “at least two different times” as each line printed requires detection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a test pattern of the type disclosed by Srinivasan in the detection of Sakano in view of Otsuka because doing so would allow for determination of the optimum pitch between droplets.
Regarding claim 4, Sakano in view of Otsuka and Srinivasan teaches the liquid ejection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the pattern is generated by interference of light irradiated on a roughness formed on the conveyed object; and the detection unit obtains the detection result based on an image capturing the pattern (Srinivasan, [0062]).
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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
Prosecution Insights