DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the amount of liquid specified by the selected mask” lacks 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.
Claim 11 is 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 claim recites “values corresponding to an amount of liquid at ejecting positions…” Based on this language it would seem that a single amount of liquid corresponds to multiple values at multiple ejecting positions, but it would seem that each ejecting position would have corresponding value of a corresponding amount of liquid. That is, it would seem amounts of liquid would be required for the claim to make sense. Correction 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) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo et al. (2015/0258785) in view of Katsuyama (2017/0085750).
Regarding claim 11, Sudo teaches a liquid ejecting device that ejects a liquid through and inkjet method comprising:
an inkjet head (fig. 3, item 61) including a plurality of nozzles (fig. 3, items 64) arranged with positions shifted from each other in a nozzle row direction that is predetermined (see fig. 3, note nozzle row direction)
a scanning driver (fig. 3, item 51) that causes the inkjet head to perform a main scan of ejecting the liquid while relatively moving a main scanning direction (fig. 3, direction of belt movement 52) intersecting the nozzle row direction with respect to a liquid ejecting target (fig. 3, item 400);
a controller (fig. 3, item 100) that controls operation of the inkjet head and the scanning driver (see fig. 3); and
a mask storage ([0107], note that several mask patterns can be used, and a storage for those mask patterns is necessarily present) that stores a plurality of masks different from each other ([0107]),
wherein
when an abnormal nozzle (fig. 10, nozzle PXL) which is the nozzle having an abnormal ejection characteristic is present (see fig. 10);
the controller is configured to change, based on the mask, a value corresponding to an amount of the liquid at each ejection position where the liquid is ejected from at least one nozzle among adjacent nozzles adjacent to the abnormal nozzle in the nozzle row direction during the main scan (see fig. 10, note that “each ejection position” is being taken to correspond to the first two positions of source data 300, and note that, where abnormal nozzle PXL would have deposited medium dots were it in working order, adjacent nozzle PX1 increases its ejection amount from medium dots to large dots), and
the ejecting positions whose value is changes based on the mask is the ejection positions of the adjacent nozzles that correspond to the ejecting positions at which the liquid is ejected when the abnormal nozzle is a normal nozzle (see fig. 10).
Sudo does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of masks stored in the mask storage are associated with image densities of images different from each other, the amount of liquid specified by the selected mask is related to a resolution of the printing, and the controller is configured to select, in advance, a selected mask from the plurality of masks based on image densities of images to be printed and the resolution of the printing. Katsuyama teaches this (Katsuyama, [0166], [0179], [0288], Note that a plurality of masks is stored in a memory and that each mask corresponds to a particular nozzle density, which corresponds with a print density, and a particular print resolution). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a mask storage with masks and corresponding print characteristics, as disclosed by Katsuyama, to the device of Sudo because doing so would amount to combining a known mask storage element with a known print device to obtain predictable results.
Upon combination, when the abnormal nozzle was present, the controller would select, in advance, the selected mask.
Regarding claim 12, Sudo teaches wherein the amount of liquid ejected by adjacent nozzle PX1 is changed based on a mask (Sudo, [0107], see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, Sudo teaches wherein volumes of liquid are changes are changed for preset numbers of ejection positions (Sudo, [0107], see fig. 10. Note here, that, as defined in the claim 11 rejection, the preset number is two, corresponding to the first two ejection positions shown).
Regarding claim 14, Sudo teaches wherein the carriage is scanned for each position in the conveyance direction of the medium (Sudo, [0107], see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Sudo teaches wherein the amount of liquid ejected by adjacent nozzle PX1 is changed based on a mask (Sudo, see claim 11 rejection).
Regarding claim 16, Sudo teaches wherein the masks correspond to different print densities (Sudo, [0107], note that each mask necessarily corresponds to a different print density).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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
