CDETAILED 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 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)(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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US Publication 20220324667).
With respect to claim 1, Kobayashi et al. teaches a platen (50) configured to be set on a press head (60), the press head (60) being configured to perform a pressing operation of pressing upward against a fixed plate, the platen comprising:
a platen plate (56) including a placement surface (top surface of 56), the placement surface facing upward (Figures 2, 14 and 15), the placement surface (top surface of 56) being configured to have a print medium placed on the placement surface (top surface of 56, Paragraph 0042);
a platen support base (61) disposed lower than the platen plate (56, Figures 14 and 15), the platen support base (61) including a support pillar (62), the support pillar (62) supporting the platen plate from below (Figures 14 and 15); and
a press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) provided higher than a lowermost surface of the platen support base (61, Figures 14, 15, 26 and note 61 corresponds to 61A in Figure 26), the press surface facing downward (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26), the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) being configured for the press head (60) to come into contact with the press surface when the press head performs the pressing operation in a set state, the set state being a state in which the platen is set on the press head (Figures 16 and 17), wherein
wherein the platen plate (56) is configured such that, when the press head (60) performs the pressing operation in the set state, the platen plate (56) presses the print medium on the placement surface (top surface of 56) upward against the fixed plate (note: “the medium” is not a positively recited feature and is not part of the platen apparatus. Additionally, the limitation appears to be merely a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation. It has been held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2114(1) which states, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473. 1477-78.44 USP0.2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)." Furthermore, MPEP 2114(11) states, "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.” Therefore, Kobayshi et al. teaches all the structural limitations as recited and is capable of being used in the manner recited and thereby meets the claim language.
With respect to claim 2, Kobayashi et al. teaches the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) is parallel to the placement surface (top surface of 56, Figures 14, 15).
With respect to claim 3, Kobayashi et al. teaches wherein the platen support base (61) includes a tray (51),
the tray (51) is disposed higher than a conveyance path of the platen, in a state of the platen being supported by the conveyance path (Paragraphs 0006, 00137),
the tray (51) is configured to receive a portion, of the print medium placed on the placement surface (top surface of 56), dropping down from the placement surface (Figures 14 and 15), and the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) is provided to be higher than a lower surface of the tray (Figures 14-17).
With respect to claim 4, Kobayshi et al. teaches the support pillar includes a first support pillar (62, right side) and a second support pillar (the parallel support adjacent 62, left side), and the first support pillar (62, right side) and the second support pillar (the parallel support adjacent 62, left side) are provided at positions where a center of the platen plate (Figure 16), in a width direction orthogonal to a set direction, is interposed therebetween, the set direction being a direction in which the platen is set on the press head and orthogonal to an up-down direction (Figure 16).
With respect to claim 5, Kobayashi et al. teaches the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) is provided between the first support pillar and the second support pillar, in the width direction (Figures 21-26).
With respect to claim 8, Kobayshi et al. teaches in a set direction in which the platen (50) is set on the press head (60), an upstream end of the support pillar (62) is disposed further upstream than an upstream end, in the set direction, of the press head, in the set state (Figure 16).
With respect to claim 9, Kobayshi et al. teaches in the set state, the support pillar (62) is disposed to one side with respect to a whole of the press head (60), in a width direction orthogonal to a set direction, the set direction being a direction in which the platen is set on the press head and orthogonal to an up-down direction (Figure 16).
With respect to claim 10, Kobayshi et al. teaches a block (651-653) configured to be replaceably fixed to a lower surface, of the platen plate (56), on an opposite side from the placement surface, wherein the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) is provided on the block (Figure 22).
With respect to claim 11, Kobayshi et al. teaches the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) is provided integrally with a lower surface, of the platen plate (underside surface of 56), on an opposite side from the placement surface (top surface of 56).
With respect to claim 12, Kobayashi et al. teaches the platen support base (61) includes a contact surface (63), the contact surface (63) is configured to contact the press head in the set state, and the contact surface is provided at a position different from the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26).
With respect to claim 13, Kobayashi et al. teaches a press unit comprising:
a press machine including a press head (60), the press head (60) being configured to perform a pressing operation of pressing upward with respect to a fixed plate (Figures 14-16); and
a platen (50) configured to be set on a press head (60), the press head (60) being configured to perform a pressing operation of pressing upward against a fixed plate, the platen comprising:
a platen plate (56) including a placement surface (top surface of 56), the placement surface facing upward (Figures 2, 14 and 15), the placement surface (top surface of 56) being configured to have a print medium placed on the placement surface (Paragraph 0042);
a platen support base (61) disposed lower than the platen plate (56, Figures 14 and 15), the platen support base (61) including a support pillar (62), the support pillar (62) supporting the platen plate from below (Figures 14 and 15); and
a press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) provided higher than a lowermost surface of the platen support base (61, Figures 14, 15, 26 and note 61 corresponds to 61A in Figure 26), the press surface facing downward (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26), the press surface (underside of 60 which corresponds to 631A in Figure 26) being configured for the press head (60) to come into contact with the press surface when the press head performs the pressing operation in a set state, the set state being a state in which the platen is set on the press head (Figures 16 and 17), wherein
the platen plate (56) is configured such that, when the press head (60) performs the pressing operation in the set state, the platen plate (56) presses the print medium on the placement surface (top surface of 56) upward against the fixed plate (note: “the medium” is not a positively recited feature and is not part of the platen apparatus. Additionally, the limitation appears to be merely a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation. It has been held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2114(1) which states, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473. 1477-78.44 USP0.2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)." Furthermore, MPEP 2114(11) states, "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.” Therefore, Kobayshi et al. teaches all the structural limitations as recited and is capable of being used in the manner recited and thereby meets the claim language.
With respect to claim 14, Kobayashi et al. teaches a processor, wherein
the platen support base (61) includes a contact surface, the contact surface (632, 633) being configured to contact the press head in the set state,
the contact surface (632, 633) is provided at a position different from the press surface (Figure 21),
the press machine includes a sensor (79, 90), the sensor being configured to detect contact between the contact surface and the press head (Paragraph 0066, Paragraphs 0099, 0100, 0109), and
the processor is configured to allow execution of the pressing operation when the contact between the contact surface and the press head is detected by the sensor (Paragraphs 0099, 0100, 0109).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments filed 9/2/26, applicant argues that Kobayashi fails to teach or disclose the amended requirement, however the examiner notes that “the print medium” is not positively recited and not part of structure of the platen. Also, the recitation appears to be a desired mode of operation as discussed above in the detailed action. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights