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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on January 16, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, and 16 are currently amended. Claims 3, and 19 are canceled, Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 15, 21, and 25 are withdrawn. Claims 16 – 18, 20, and 22 – 24 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
New Grounds of Rejection
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16 – 18, and 22 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0096328 A1 (Ruiz et al., of record), in view of Wu et al. (US 2013/0222455 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ruiz et al. teaches an inkjet printing system and method comprising an inkjet printing system [0004 – 0005], comprising:
a plurality of linear arrays of nozzles, each connected to a different container holding a different material formulation ([0022] “printhead(s) 22 comprise a plurality of inkjets 15 (shown in FIG. 2) and use the inkjets 15 to eject material. In one embodiment some inkjets 15 eject a build material whereas other inkjets 15 eject a support material”),
said arrays being arranged parallel to each other (note that the parallel rearrangement of the arrays of nozzles is customary and well known in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C): “It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art” In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400); and
a controller (34) having an electronic circuit configured to receive information pertaining to a defective nozzle (“inoperative inkjets”) in a first array of nozzles (see [0023]-[0026], and [0026] “these controllers can be implemented with more than one processor and associated circuitry and components, each of which is configured to form one or more tasks or functions”) ([0028] the controller 34 compares the signals generated by the sensor 70 to an expected value (block 380), then the data are compared to the image data for operating the inkjets to determine if the axial position alone or the axial and circumferential positions of the drops are correct, if not achieved then the controller 34 reports the inoperative inkjet (block 390), “When process 300 returns the printhead(s) 22 for the second time to the position over the shaft 50, another group of inkjets 15 eject material onto the shaft 50”; see [0030]: “After the predetermined number of build cycles is performed, the printhead(s) 22 are moved to eject material onto the shaft 50, the printhead(s) 22 returned to the build area, the shaft 50 is rotated, and the light source 60 and sensor 70 operated to generate signals that enable the controller 34 to identify any inoperative inkjets among the inkjets operated to eject material onto the shaft. If one or more inoperative inkjets are detected, the build cycles are terminated or a missing inkjet compensation scheme is implemented to address the inoperative inkjet.”).
Ruiz et al. does not specifically disclose the electronic circuit in the controller of the inkjet printing system explicitly configured to receive information pertaining to a defective nozzle in a first array of nozzles, and to disable, responsively to said information pertaining to said defective nozzle in said first array of nozzles, a nozzle in a second array of nozzles; wherein said electronic circuit of said controller is also configured to operate nozzles of said first array, other than said defective nozzle, to dispense a first material formulation from a first container, holding said first material formulation and being connected to said first array of nozzles, and to operate nozzles of said second array, other than said disabled nozzle, to dispense a second material formulation from a second container, holding said second material formulation and being connected to said second array of nozzles, and wherein said electronic circuit of said controller is also configured to select said disabled nozzle at a location along said second array of nozzles which is within 0 to 5 array pitch units from a location of said defective nozzle along said first array.
Like Ruiz, Wu et al. teaches a system and method for detection and compensation of inoperable inkjets in an inkjet printing apparatus (5) (Abstract, [0006],), including , inter alia, a controller (50) [0040]-[0048], [0064], a light sensor 160 [0046], an optical imaging system 54 [0046], “to process the image data before generating the control signals for the inkjet ejectors to eject colorants” [0027], one or more inkjets in the color modules 21A-21D, “a color module for each primary color includes one or more printheads; multiple printheads in a module are formed into a single row or multiple row array; printheads of a multiple row array are staggered; a printhead prints more than one color; or the printheads or portions thereof are mounted movably in a direction transverse to the process direction P for printing operations, such as for spot-color applications and the like” [0044]-[0046] – (analogous to the claimed “a plurality of linear arrays of nozzles, each connected to a different container holding a different material formulation, said arrays being arranged parallel to each other”).
Wu et al. discloses that during a printing operation, if one or more inkjets in the color modules 21A-21D become inoperable, generating an image defect, the controller 50 identifies an image defect that corresponds to an inoperable inkjet in the image data (block 208) [0044], with reference to the digital data (e.g., binary data in a rasterized image format, printer command data in a page description language (PDL), ASCII text data, or any other digital data format known to the art for controlling the formation of ink images in a printer) used to print ink images [0045].
Wu et al. at [0047] discloses, “In FIG. 3A, the candidate inkjet 118 [a disabled nozzle in a second array] is offset from the inoperable inkjet 116 [a defective nozzle] by a span of one pixel in the cross-process direction. FIG. 4A depicts another situation where a candidate inkjet 120 is offset from the inoperable inkjet 116 by two pixels, and FIG. 5B depicts yet another situation where a candidate inkjet 110 is offset from the inoperable inkjet 116 by three pixels” – analogous to the claimed “wherein said electronic circuit of said controller is also configured to select said disabled nozzle at a location along said second array of nozzles which is within 0 to 5 array pitch units from a location of said defective nozzle along said first array.”
[0050] discloses, “the controller 50 deactivates the candidate inkjet 118 and attempts to compensate for the candidate inkjet 118 by operating inkjets 114, 116, 120, and 122 at an increased rate when the print job would operate inkjet 118, if the inkjet was operable.” – analogous to the claimed “to operate nozzles of said second array, other than said disabled nozzle.”
Wu et al. at [0017] discloses “FIG. 6A is a graphical depiction of reflectance values in image data generated when inkjets that are adjacent to an inoperable inkjet are deactivated.” – these operations and “deactivated adjacent inkjets” are analogous to the claimed “a controller having an electronic circuit configured to receive information pertaining to a defective nozzle (Wu et al. “inoperable inkjet”) in a first array of nozzles, and to disable, responsively to said information pertaining to said defective nozzle in said first array of nozzles, a nozzle in a second array of nozzles” (see [0025], [0040], [0048]-[0050]), and at [0060] discloses, “After identification of the inoperable inkjet with reference to the second image data, the controller 50 reactivates the previously deactivated candidate inkjet and returns inkjets neighboring the candidate inkjet to a normal mode of operation (block 232). The controller also deactivates the newly identified inoperable candidate inkjet, and compensates for the inoperable candidate inkjet by activating neighboring inkjets around the inoperable inkjet” – analogous to the claimed “to operate nozzles of said second array (“neighboring inkjets”), other than said disabled nozzle, to dispense a second material formulation from a second container, holding said second material formulation and being connected to said second array of nozzles”, these operations by the controller of Wu et al., are analogous to the claimed controller having an electric circuit operations, since Wu et al. discloses that said control is applicable to a printhead wherein the plurality of array of nozzles are in the same printhead ( as in Wu et al. FIG. 3A-B), as well as to embodiments where the plurality of array of nozzles are in separate printheads parallel to each other (e.g., see FIG. 7 and [0048] “While the neighboring inkjets depicted in FIG. 3A are in the same printhead 102 and the inoperable inkjet, inkjet printers that employ interleaved printheads, such as the printer 5, can also substitute inkjets in one or more interleaved printheads that are proximate to the inoperable inkjet in the cross-process direction”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the electronic circuit in the controller of Ruiz’ inkjet printing system, so that controller’s electronic circuit is configured to receive information pertaining to a defective nozzle in a first array of nozzles (e.g., Wu et al. inoperable inkjet 116), and to disable, responsively to said information pertaining to said defective nozzle in said first array of nozzles, a nozzle in a second array of nozzles (e.g., Wu et al. candidate inkjet 118), as suggested and taught by Wu et al., wherein said electronic circuit of said controller is also configured to operate nozzles of said first array (e.g., Wu et al. 112, 120), other than said defective nozzle (Wu et al. 116), to dispense a first material formulation (e.g., a first color) from a first container (e.g., Wu et al. color modules 21A-21D), holding said first material formulation and being connected to said first array of nozzles, as suggested by Wu et al. [0044]-[0050], and to operate nozzles of said second array, other than said disabled nozzle (e.g., Wu et al. 118), to dispense a second material formulation (e.g., a different color) from a second container (e.g., Wu et al. color modules 21A-21D), holding said second material formulation and being connected to said second array of nozzles (e.g., see Wu et al. FIG. 7), wherein said electronic circuit of said controller is also configured to select said disabled nozzle at a location along said second array of nozzles which is within 0 to 5 array pitch units from a location of said defective nozzle along said first array (e.g., Wu et al. [0047] the candidate inkjet 118 is offset from the inoperable inkjet 116 by a span of one, two, or more pixels in the cross-process direction), as suggested by Wu et al. [0047], for the purpose of identifying inoperable inkjets that can cause printing defects, and compensating for the inoperable inkjets, hence avoiding further printing defects, as taught by Wu et al. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 17, Ruiz/Wu teaches the system of claim 16, comprising: an optical scanner (e.g., Wu et al. optical detectors [0007], and optical imaging system 54 [0041]); and an image processor configured for receiving scans from said optical scanner, processing said scans to detect said defective nozzle in said first array of nozzles, and transmitting said information to said controller (see Wu et al. [0041], [0043], [0046], [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Ruiz/Wu teaches the system according to claim 16, wherein said controller (e.g., Wu et al. 50) is configured for selecting said nozzle (e.g., Wu et al. 118) in said second array so as to locally maintain a ratio between said first (e.g., a first color delivered by inkjets 110, 114, 122) and said second material formulations (e.g., a different color delivered by inkjets 112, 120, see Wu et al. [0048] “compensating with neighboring inkjets”).
Regarding claim 20, Ruiz/Wu teaches the system according to claim 16, wherein said controller (e.g., Wu et al. 50) is configured for detecting a plurality of defective nozzles in said first array of nozzles, disabling a plurality of nozzles in said second array of nozzles; dispensing said first material formulation from nozzles of said first array, other than said defective nozzles; and dispensing said second material formulation from nozzles of said second array, other than said disabled nozzles (e.g., see Wu et al. [0061], [0066]).
Regarding claim 22, Ruiz/Wu teaches the system according to claim 16, wherein said first array of nozzles is located in a first dispensing head, and said second array of nozzles is located in a second dispensing head (e.g., see the discussion of claim 1 above, and Wu et al. FIG. 7 and [0048]).
Regarding claim 23, Ruiz/Wu teaches the system according to claim 16, wherein said controller (e.g., Wu et al. 50) is configured for detecting an additional defective nozzle intermittently with said dispensing of said first and said second material formulations (see Wu et al. [0061] “In an alternative configuration, process 200 identifies the inoperable inkjet in an iterative manner instead of identifying the inoperable inkjet with reference to a single additional image defect generated by one candidate inkjet. In an iterative configuration, process 200 generates additional image data (block 220) after selecting a new candidate inkjet (block 236). Process 200 continues selecting new candidate inkjets until the candidate inkjet is the inoperable inkjet and the image data do not include a second image defect (block 224) or until process 200 identifies the offset between successive light streaks generated by candidate inkjets and the original light streak generated by the inoperable inkjet.”).
Regarding claim 24, Ruiz/Wu teaches the system according to claim 16, being a three-dimensional inkjet printing system (Ruiz et al. [0002 – 0004]), wherein said first and said second material formulations, are respectively a first and a second building material formulations (e.g., Ruiz [0022] discloses “The printhead(s) 22 comprise a plurality of inkjets 15 (shown in FIG. 2) and use the inkjets 15 to eject material. In one embodiment some inkjets 15 eject a build material whereas other inkjets 15 eject a support material.”; Wu et al. teaches multiple color modules or units 21A, 21B, 21C, and 21D).
However, the examiner points out that the claim attempts to further limit the inkjet printing system (apparatus) by specifying the material worked upon (e.g., first and second material formulations); however, the material worked upon is not germane to the patentability of apparatus itself and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, “A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Escobedo et al. (US 2004/0263563 A1): [0042] In one embodiment, by dividing nozzles 13 of printhead assembly 12 into nozzle subgroups 40, ink can be ejected through any nozzle within each nozzle subgroup 40 to produce dot pattern 60 on print media 19 along a respective print axis 50. As such, nozzle redundancy is established with the nozzles of a respective nozzle subgroup 40. Nozzle redundancy provides the ability to alternate nozzle activation within a nozzle subgroup. More specifically, ink can be ejected through any one of the nozzles within a respective nozzle subgroup 40 to produce dot pattern 60 along a respective print axis 50. Thus, a defective or inoperative nozzle within a nozzle subgroup can be compensated for by another nozzle within the subgroup.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742