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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the recitation of “wherein printer” (lines 1-2 of the claim) to “wherein the printer”. 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 1-9 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 claims 1 and 7:
This claim requires the printer to include “an endless transport belt” and a plurality of suction chambers that are “provided on an upstream side of the belt.” However, because the claimed belt is “endless,” there is no identifiable upstream/downstream sides of the belt. Therefore, it is not clear where the suction chambers are meant to be disposed relative to the belt.
Further regarding claim 1:
Further, this claim requires a step of “repeating the previous steps for positioning remaining portions of the web over respective other suction chambers.” However, it is not clear which “steps” are repeated and/or how the steps are repeated.
In one interpretation, both the steps of “applying a negative pressure” and “placing a portion of the web” are repeated. However, if both steps are performed in repetition, it is not clear which of the suction chambers is the “selected one” in the various repetitions. Must the same suction chamber be selected for each repetition? Are different suction chambers selected in different repetitions? Moreover, if both steps are repeated, it is not clear whether the claimed “respective other suction chambers” are meant to refer to those of the independently controllable suction chambers positioned beside one another, or if they are meant to refer to different suction chambers.
In another interpretation, only the step of “placing a portion of the web” is repeated. Because the “repeating” step is performed for the specific purpose of positioning portions of the web over suction chambers, it is not clear if the step of “applying a negative pressure” is meant to be included in the repeated steps. However, this would only seem to repeat one step (as opposed to the plural repeated “steps”?
In view of the above, an artisan would not be able to determine the point at which the claimed method is infringed.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8-9:
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of claims 1/7, and therefore also fail to meet the requirements of this statute.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Beehler et al. (US 6543948 B2).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood):
Beehler et al. ‘948 disclose a method of loading a web of print medium in a roll printer, wherein the printer includes an endless transport belt (belt 24) extending over a plurality of independently controllable suction chambers (at least those identified rows 50, 52, 52’, 54, 54’ of column A: Fig. 2) positioned beside one another in a width direction of the belt (Fig. 1-2) and provided on an upstream side of the belt (Figs. 1-2), wherein the width direction is perpendicular to a transport direction of the belt (Figs. 1-2), the method comprising:
applying a negative pressure to a selected one of the suction chambers (col. 3, lines 28-34);
placing a portion of the web over the selected suction chamber, so that the portion is held in place on the belt by the negative pressure in the selected suction chamber (col. 3, lines 28-34);
repeating the previous steps for positioning remaining portions of the web over respective other suction chambers (col. 3, lines 51-65);
driving the belt so that the web moves with the belt in the transport direction (col. 4, lines 33-38).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beehler et al. (US 6543948 B2) in view of Beehler et al. (US 2002/0015610 A1) and Yamamoto et al. (WO 2017/19593 A1).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood):
Beehler et al. ‘948 disclose a wide format roll printer comprising:
an endless transport belt (belt 24) supported on a plurality of support rollers (rollers 26, 30) and defining a medium support area positioned above a media input during use (Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of support rollers includes an upstream support roller (roller 26) positioned on a side of the belt near the input roller (Fig. 1);
a plurality of suction chambers (at least those identified rows 50, 52, 52’, 54, 54’ of column A: Fig. 2) positioned adjacent to the upstream support roller (Figs. 1-2) and provided beside one another in a width direction perpendicular to a transport direction of the belt (Fig. 2).
Beehler et al. ‘948 do not expressly disclose an input roller or a user interface.
However, Beehler et al. ‘610 disclose a printer comprising an input roller (one of feeders 48-54 as a “roll of print media”: paragraph 30) and an endless transport belt (belt transport 32) supported on a plurality of support rollers (rollers 34, 36: Fig. 1), wherein an upstream support roller (36) is positioned on a side of the belt near the input roller (Fig. 1). Beehler et al. ‘610 teach that such a configuration enables selective transport of various print media (paragraph 30).
Further, Yamamoto et al. disclose a printer having a plurality of suction boxes (20a-e) and a user interface (operation unit 28: Fig. 7), wherein the user interface is configured to consecutively selecting and indicating each one of the suction chambers for applying a negative pressure to the selected suction chambers (pages 5-6 & Fig. 7), such that a portion of the media can be adhered to a belt at the selected suction chambers (pages 5-6). Yamamoto et al. teach that such a user interface allows a user to freely adjust the negative pressure in each suction box (page 6).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Beehler et al.’s printer to include an input roller, such as taught by Beehler et al. ‘610 and a user interface, such a taught by Yamamoto et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Beehler et al. as modified by Beehler et al. and Yamamoto et al., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mukaiyama et al. (US 2016/0214412 A1).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood):
Beehler et al.’s modified printer comprises all the limitations of claim 7, but does not expressly comprise a user interface that is configured to initiate driving the belt.
However, Mukaiyama et al. disclose a printer comprising a web transport mechanism (at least feed section 14) and a user interface (terminal 100), wherein the user interface is configured to initiate driving the transport mechanism for moving the web (paragraphs 86-90 & Figs. 5, 8). Mukaiyama et al. teach that such a configuration enables a user to perform detailed inspection of a print (paragraph 90).
Therefore, before the effecting filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a user interface that enables transport control, as taught by Mukaiyama et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Musete et al. (US 2018/0088509 A1) disclose a relative method for loading a web (Figs. 2B-2C).
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights