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
The amendment filed February 20, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 12 is withdrawn and claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 13-20 in the reply filed on October 11, 2024 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 October 11, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now has that “head information” includes “nozzle grade information on a relative grade for each one of the nozzles” and determining the print path using “the relative grade for each one of the nozzles”. Claim 13 now has “the print path selected based on a relative grade for each one of the nozzles”. As discussed for the 35 USC 112(b) rejection below, this could mean (1) that nozzle grades could be such that a there are a set number of grades (such as “high”, “average”, “low”) and multiple nozzles could meet each grade requirement, and each nozzle would be graded, and the “relative” refers to the differences between the set number of grades (for example, “high” could be considered relatively better than “average” and “average” relatively better than “low”); or (2) as to a “relative” grade for “each one” of the nozzles, it could mean that each individual nozzle is graded/ranked compared to every other nozzle, such that the best/highest grade nozzle considered number 1, then a number 2, then a number 3, etc. until, for example, if there was 100 nozzles, the worst nozzle is number 100, or (3) some other relative determination could be made. The specification as filed does not use terminology of “relative” in regards to the grades of the nozzles. It is described that nozzles can be described as having a grade that is “high grade” (note page 19 of the specification as filed). It is described that a print path with more nozzles of a “high grade” could be preferentially selected from possible print paths, and describes how a print path of a higher score can be preferentially selected by assigning a score to each grade of the nozzle and summing all scores corresponding to grades of each nozzle participating in printing (note page 30 of the specification as filed). This does not clarify if “relative” grade determined based on option (1) or option (2) or something else. As well, to the extent that page 30 of the specification involves using a “relative” grade of nozzles, this gives a specific pattern of use, not any use at all of relative grade for determination. Therefore, the claims 1 and 13 appear to broader than what is originally disclosed and the claims contain new matter.
The other dependent claims depend from claims 1 and 13 and do not cure the new matter issues, and so are also rejected.
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 1-11 and 13-21 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.
Claim 1 now has that “head information” includes “nozzle grade information on a relative grade for each one of the nozzles” and determining the print path using “the relative grade for each one of the nozzles”. Claim 13 now has “the print path selected based on a relative grade for each one of the nozzles”. This terminology is confusing and indefinite as worded. It could mean (1) that nozzle grades could be such that a there are a set number of grades (such as “high”, “average”, “low”) and multiple nozzles could meet each grade requirement, and each nozzle would be graded, and the “relative” refers to the differences between the set number of grades (for example, “high” could be considered relatively better than “average” and “average” relatively better than “low”); or (2) as to a “relative” grade for “each one” of the nozzles, it could mean that each individual nozzle is graded/ranked compared to every other nozzle, such that the best/highest grade nozzle considered number 1, then a number 2, then a number 3, etc. until, for example, if there was 100 nozzles, the worst nozzle is number 100, or (3) some other relative determination could be made. The specification as filed does not use terminology of “relative” in regards to the grades of the nozzles. It is described that nozzles can be described as having a grade that is “high grade” (note page 19 of the specification as filed). It is described that a print path with more nozzles of a “high grade” could be preferentially selected from possible print paths, and describes how a print path of a higher score can be preferentially selected by assigning a score to each grade of the nozzle and summing all scores corresponding to grades of each nozzle participating in printing (note page 30 of the specification as filed). This does not clarify if “relative” grade determined based on option (1) or option (2) or something else. For the purpose of examination, either (1) or (2) is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1 now has that the “head information” includes information on a relative grade for each one of the nozzles, and also that “determining the print path” is based on substrate information and “the head information, and the relative grade for each one of the nozzles”. This is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended, since “the head information” used for determining the print path would already have information as to the relative grade for each one of the nozzles. Is the specific determining using “the relative grade” using different information, or just indicating that the relative grade from the head information is specifically used in determining the print path? For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the require of the claims, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure all the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3875280 (hereinafter ‘280) in view of Japan 2006-173436 (hereinafter ‘436) and (1) EITHER Sasayama et al (US 2009/0262158) OR Miyoshi (US 2015/0241317), and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of DE 102018121557 (hereinafter ‘557).
Claim 1: ‘280 provides a method for determining a print path set to be applied when ink is ejected on a substrate (note the abstract, note the travel path, and note translation, pages 2-4, with inkjet coating with inks, and where paths, so multiple as a set, can be selected). The method includes receiving substrate information of the substrate (note page 4, translation, note the specific workpiece/substrate structure to be coated would have to be received/used, and note page 5, translation, indicating how workpiece structure would have substrate information received so can be divided into a grid for use with travel path determination). The method further includes receiving head information of a head that ejects the ink through nozzles (note page 4, translation, with print head location features, speed features, for example). The method further includes determining the print path set (of paths) based on the substrate information and head information (note page 4, translation, with step b) target travel path being set, where it would be understood that the substrate information such as shape/structure and print head information such as speed, location would need to be used for the travel path, since step b) indicates print head speed, location used, and the substrate shape/structure would also have to be known to have the print head at desired locations, and also note page 5, translation of using substrate grid, and where multiple paths can be used, page 6, translation). It is indicated in ‘280 that the system can define multiple individual travel paths and printing paths (so print path set), and with the use of angular deviation determination, larger printing areas can be provided with a reduction in the number of travel paths, with results in a faster and more productive coating process (note pages 5-6, translation). Further as to the print region including print units, ‘280 describes the substrate divided into a grid and also indicates print data includes the number of dots (pixels) in a raster area which can be a print unit and application quality per pixel (so target ejection ink amount required per print unit) and from the grid there would be a plurality of print units (note pages 5-6, translation), and since printing occurs for the units, they would need to be in a print region (note page 4, translation). ’280 further provides for a printing method for ejecting ink to a substrate using a head (abstract, pages 3-4, translation, noting the described ink jet process), where a virtual printing step for determining print paths (print path set) to be applied when ink is ejected onto the substrate is provided (note pages 4-6, translation, and note the discussion above), and an actual printing step of ejecting the ink to the substrate based on the print path set determined in the virtual printing step, such that ink is ejected to the substrate based on the print path determined (note page 4, translation with step e).
(A) As to selecting print paths in order beginning with a print path having a greatest distance from a central portion of a print region and proceeding towards print paths that are progressively closer to the central portion to derive the print path set and ensuring that the print path set includes the smallest number of print paths satisfying a target printing condition for the substrate.
‘436 describes providing a desirable film pattern on a substrate by accurately printing a printed edge and forming a film of unform thickness inside a film formation region with ink by an inkjet method, with a first step of printing edges of the film formation region and a second step of printing the inside of the film forming region (abstract), where by printing the edge first and curing/solidifying, the edge portion can be printed with accuracy and the ink on the inside portion, later printed, does not overflow to the non-printing region and the printed pattern image does not deteriorate (note page 2, translation). Therefore, ‘436 indicates that it can be desired to specifically provide an order of selecting print paths where the print path having a greatest distance from a central portion of a print region (the edge) is printed first, and then further print path that would be closer to the central portion (path for the inside) is printed second (giving a print path set in this order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 to specifically select print paths to follow whereby first print paths are selected having the greatest distance from a central portion of a print region and sequentially selecting further paths such that they are progressively closer to the central portion to derive the print path set, where the print path set further includes the smallest number of print paths satisfying a target printing condition for the substrate as suggested by ‘436 in order to provide a desirable printing condition, where ‘280 indicates to determine a print path set with ink jet printing, and ‘436 indicates that when providing ink jet printing it can be desired to provide the printing such that the edge/area having a greatest distance from a central portion of a print region is printed first before the inside region/closer to the central portion, so a first path having a greatest distance from a central portion of the print region would be selected, and then a path closer to the central portion would be selected, and by progressively sequentially selecting paths towards the center, for each path the next most outside edge would be printed, for the benefits of printing the outside first, and furthermore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 in view of ‘436 to specifically provide the smallest number of print paths satisfying a target printing condition for the substrate is determined because it is indicated in ‘280 that the system can define multiple individual travel paths and printing paths, and with the use of angular deviation determination, larger printing areas can be provided with a reduction in the number of travel paths, with results in a faster and more productive coating process (note pages 5-6, translation), and therefore it would be suggested to optimize the number of printing/travel paths to be the smallest number possible, such as for example, two, with an outside edge printing path and an inside/central portion path.
(B) Optionally, further using ‘557, ‘557 similarly notes coating a three dimensional surface with a printing head (which can be an ink jet printer) (note abstract, translation, page 5), where a substrate grid is used with trajectories/paths of a printing head (note translation, page 3), where it is indicated to optimize from the possible trajectories used and determine the lowest number of trajectories usable, which accelerates the coating process (note page 6, translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 in view of ‘436 to specifically optimize to use the lowest number of trajectories/travel paths/printing paths as suggested by ‘557, which indicates that in a similar such process as with ‘280, it is desirable to minimize the number of trajectories/travel paths/printing paths.
(C) Further as to the head information including nozzle grade information on a relative grade for each one of the nozzles, where determining the print path set uses substrate information, head information and relative grade for each one of the nozzles, as discussed above, ‘280 would indicate using substrate and print head information.
(C)(1) Using Sasayama, as to the head information including nozzle grade information about a relative grade of each one of the nozzles, such as a grade based on uniformity of the amount of ink to be ejected from the nozzles, ‘280 indicates that one or more nozzles can be used on the print head (note page 6, translation). Sasayama further describes inkjet printing from an inkjet head (note 0002). Sasayama indicates that when printing one wants to provide for corrections from non-uniformities provided by misfiring nozzles (note 0281-0282), where the system stores non-uniformity/misfiring selection information for each nozzle, and one can correct for density non-uniformities provided by the misfiring nozzles by using other nozzles (note 0281-0292). The selection information can include a non-uniformity correction coefficient and misfiring correction coefficients to be used with a nozzle (note 0286 with non-uniformity/misfiring selection information for each nozzle, and correction coefficient based on the nozzle number), which combination can be considered a grade of nozzle, for example (note 0281-0292), or at the least nozzles would be determined to be non-misfiring or misfiring nozzles, giving two grades of nozzles (one that would give uniformity of ink ejected, and one that would not). These two grades of nozzles can also be considered as giving relative grades of information for each one of the nozzles (since can be considered as one grade giving uniformity (so more uniform) and one that does not (so less uniform) which would apply to each nozzle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 in view of ‘436, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 to have the head information include information as to the uniformity/non-uniformity of each nozzle (which would thus correspond to uniformity of the amount of ink ejected, since misfiring would not give the desired amount, for example, in the form of a relative grade of more and less uniform for each nozzle) to allow the system to provide correction to give a uniform coating based on a relative grade of the nozzle as suggested by Sasayama, since ‘280 describes a process for inkjet printing that will take into account head information, and Sasayama indicates how head information desired for inkjet printing would be nozzle uniformity to allow for a uniform coating, where a relative grade of nozzle based on such features would be suggested to be included as head information (as discussed above for Sasayama), and it would further be suggested to provide that the print path set determination would include taking into account a relative grade for each nozzle, and select that with the better relative grades, for efficiency, such that less correction would be needed. Furthermore, ‘280 further provides providing position information as to nozzles used (which would include nozzles usable) and the amount of coating agent/ink to be ejected from each nozzle (note page 4, translation).
(C)(2) Using Miyoshi, as to the head information including nozzle grade information about a grade of each of the nozzles, such as a relative grade based on impact reproducibility of each of the nozzles of the head, ‘280 indicates that one or more nozzles can be used on the print head (note page 6, translation). Miyoshi further describes inkjet printing from an inkjet head with multiple nozzles (note 0006-0007, 0009, 0025, 0066-0067). Miyoshi wants to determine/receive head information that would be based on information about each of the nozzles, where the nozzles are classified (which can be considered as graded) into different statuses/grades (chronic defective condition, temporary defective condition, and good condition level, which can be considered as providing relative grades of “good condition level”, a higher grade, and the other defective conditions, a lower grade), where the resulting grade/relative grade is used to determine what nozzles to use in printing (note 0011, 0102, where the “good”, higher grade condition would be used, and the defective lower grade condition would not be used), and where the status/grade is determined based on droplet landing deviation/accuracy (note 0011, 0026, 0114, 0119-0120), such that the test can be considered as based on impact reproducibility of the nozzles. The relative grading is used to determine what nozzles to use (note 0011), and would affect the resulting print path based on the nozzles usable. The head information would also include position information of usage nozzles (note 0011, since to not use nozzles, one would need to know in what position they are).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 in view of ‘436, EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 to have the head information include information as to the impact reproducibility of each nozzle to allow the system to provide correction to give a desirable coating based on a relative grade of the nozzle (good/higher grade and defective/lower grade) as suggested by Miyoshi, since ‘280 describes a process for inkjet printing that will take into account head information, and Miyoshi indicates how head information desired for inkjet printing would be the impact reproducibility of each nozzle to allow for a desirable coating, where a relative grade of nozzle based on such features is included as head information, and would affect/determine the print path used as the good/higher grade nozzles are preferentially used. Furthermore, ‘280 further provides providing position information as to nozzles used (which would include nozzles usable) and the amount of coating agent/ink to be ejected from each nozzle (note page 4, translation).
Claim 2: as to the determining of the print path set comprising generating a virtual substrate reflecting the target printing condition based on the substrate information, performing virtual printing by applying the selected print path set to the virtual substrate, and confirming whether the target printing conditions have been satisfied, this would be suggested by ‘280, which would describe using the substrate to reflect target printing condition and to determine/select print path set, and perform virtual printing (without actual coating) and confirming meeting target printing condition (note page 4, translation, steps a)-e), where it is noted that travel paths (so a set) can be obtained by computer simulation, which would thus require a virtual substrate, etc. and note determinations described at pages 5-6, translation).
Claim 3: as to information (substrate) as to the position of a print unit of the plurality of print units in which ink is ejected and target ink amount, this would be suggested by ‘280 (note pages 5-6, translation, with the substrate divided into a grid and also indicates print data includes the number of dots (pixels) in a raster area which can be print unit and application quality per pixel (so target ejection ink amount required per print unit)). Further as to the print region including print units, this would be indicted by ‘280, note page 4, translation, and since printing occurs from the units, they would need to be in a print region.
Claim 4: as to the print path sequentially selecting selects a print path less overlapped with a region on which virtual printing applied/completed is preferentially selected, this would further be suggested by ‘280 in view of ‘436, where ‘280 discusses how print/travel paths can have angular deviation from raster areas, which would include the print units (note page 6, translation), and also discusses control of amount of material provided in an area to give a uniform coating (note page 6, translation), and therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a less overlapped region with material already applied so as to have less build up of additional coating, giving an uneven result.
Claim 5: the features of claim 5 would be suggested as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim 6: when providing the print path selecting when providing the features of claim 5 above, it would have been obvious that the print path determining step would include selecting a print path including a first set of nozzles of higher grade relative to a remainder of the nozzles with the higher grade based on uniformity of the amount of ink to be ejected or impact reproducibility, for example, where (1) when using Sasayama, use of non-misfiring nozzles would equate to high uniformity of amount of ink to be ejected from each of the nozzles as compared to the misfiring ones, since Sasayama indicates how to use other nozzles than the misfiring ones as discussed for claims 1 and 5 above, and thus one would select the path to have more nozzles of a higher grade relative (a set of these nozzles) to the remainder of the nozzles and (2) when using Miyoshi, higher grade nozzles would be those with accurate impact reproducibility of the nozzles where the non-accurate impacts would be classified lower as nozzles not to use (note 0011), and where as discussed above, the relatively higher grade would be selected) giving a set of these nozzles, over the remainder of lower grade nozzles to get better application.
Claim 7: when providing the print path when providing the features of claim 5 above, it would have been obvious that the print path determining step would include more usable nozzles (non-misfiring, for example), since Sasayama OR Miyoshi indicate how to use other nozzles than the misfiring ones/defective nozzles as discussed for claims 1 and 5 above, and these would be overlapped with a region required for printing, since the nozzles are desired to be used for the printing.
Claim 8: ‘280 indicates providing the virtual substrate in the form of a grid (note pages 5-6, translation, where the dividing the substrate into a grid would be virtually, because this used for calculations, and noting the suggestion of virtual simulation as discussed for claim 2).
Claim 13:’280 provides for a printing method for ejecting ink through nozzles to a substrate using a head (abstract, pages 3-4, translation, noting the described ink jet process), where a virtual printing step for determining print paths (print path set) to be applied when ink is ejected onto the substrate is provided (note pages 4-6, translation), an actual printing step of ejecting the ink to the substrate based on the print path set determined in the virtual printing step (note page 4, translation with step e). As to determining the print path set as claimed, these features are suggested by ‘280 in view of ‘436, (1) EITHER Sasayama OR (2) Miyoshi, and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 as discussed for claim 1 above, where as to the path selected based on a relative grade of each one of the nozzles, this would be suggested by Sasayama OR Miyoshi, where Sasayama would suggest the use of higher grade (relative grade) nozzles as discussed for claim 1 above, and Miyoshi would suggest that the lower grade nozzles not be used (0011).
Claim 14: as to the determining print paths comprising a virtual substate generation as claimed, a virtual printing as claimed, and confirming as claimed, these would be suggested by ‘280, which would describe using the substrate to reflect target printing condition and to determine/select print paths, and perform virtual printing (without actual coating) and confirming meeting target printing condition (note page 4, translation, steps a)-e), where it is noted that travel paths can be obtained by computer simulation, which would thus require a virtual substrate, etc. and note determinations described at pages 5-6, translation). As to information (substrate) as to the position of a print unit in which ink is ejected and target ink amount, this would be suggested by ‘280 (note pages 5-6, translation, with the substrate divided into a grid and also indicates print data includes the number of dots (pixels) in a raster area which can be print unit and application quality per pixel (so target ejection ink amount required per print unit)).
Claim 15: As to additionally providing the printing path selection again (selecting a second print path) when the target printing condition not satisfied in the confirmation step, and providing actual printing with injecting ink using the selected print path until the target condition is satisfied, this would have been obvious from ‘280, which provides actual printing when the target travel path (for desired printing condition) reached (note pages 4-6, translation), and therefore, one would reoptimize to provide the printing path selection step again if the desired printing conditions not reached, where the printing includes ejecting the ink (note page 4, translation).
Claim 16: In ‘280, in the print path selection including selecting the path can be selected based on position of each one of the determined print paths, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since print paths are determined, and the order/selection of use would be baths on the paths determined, such as from the outside in. Also note the discussion of claim 18 below.
Claim 17: Further as to selecting a print path farther from the print region (selected based on a distance from the central region being higher among the print paths) of print paths selected, this would be suggested as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim 18: as to selecting to provide a priority of a print path with a larger (higher) number of nozzles passing through the region to be printed, ‘280 notes that the nozzle head used for printing can have more than one nozzle (so a large number of more than 1) and the system can also have more than one print head (note page 6, translation), and it is desirable to provide a faster coating process (note page 6, translation), and therefore it would have further been obvious to optimize a path that provides for more than one nozzle applying coating to an area, since more coating would be applied faster.
Claim 19: as discussed for claims 1 and 5 above, (1) when using Sasayama, it would be suggested that a grade for the nozzle be determined based on the uniformity of the amount of ink injected (the misfiring), which would also indicate for reproducibility of the ink impact position (misfiring would not give reproducible results). ‘280 also indicates to take into account the amount of ink to be ejected from the nozzles (note page 4, translation). It also would have been obvious to take into account the number of times of use of the nozzles, as this would give more wear and tear on the system, leading to the problems described by Sasayama. (2) when using Miyoshi, it would be suggested that a grade of the nozzles is determined based on reproducibility of the ink impact position of the nozzle (noting the discussion of claims 1 and 5 above). It would be understood that this can also include affecting uniformity of ink ejected and amount of ink to be ejected, since it is indicated that problems causes reproducibility problems include nozzle clogging (note 0026-0027), which clogging would also effects amounts and uniformity of ejected material. Additionally, it also would have been obvious to take into account the number of times of use of the nozzles, as this would give more wear and tear on the system.
Claim 21: as to selecting a print path for performing printing on an edge portion of the virtual substrate, which is peripheral to the central portion, this would be suggested by ‘436 as discussed for claim 1 above, where a path for performing printing on an edge portion of the substrate (so also virtual substrate for testing), which would be peripheral to the central region is suggested to be selected.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘280 in view of ‘436, (1) EITHER Sasayama OR Miyoshi and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 as applied to claims 1-8, 13-19and 21 above, and further in view of Japan 2001-018378 (hereinafter ‘378).
Claim 9: As to the virtual substrate generated as many as a number of colors in the ink, ‘280 notes that the system can be used for multipass coating and have multiple nozzles (note pages 6-7, translation).
‘378 further describes ink jet printing with multipass coating, where it is known to provide the number of passes in the printing suitable for each color component of the plurality of components (note page 2, translation), and thus it would be understood that conditions can change for each pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 in view of ‘436, (1) EITHER Sasayama OR Miyoshi and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 to generate a substrate for each ink color to allow for multipass coating with different inks for different layers for example, to allow for desirable control as suggested by ‘378, since ‘280 indicates that ink jet printing with multipass coating, and ‘378 indicates that such inkjet coating with multipass coating can be provided with multiple colors and provide suitable passes for each color component.
Claim 20: ‘280 indicates providing the virtual substrate in the form of a grid (note pages 5-6, translation, where the dividing the substrate into a grid would be virtually, because this used for calculations, and noting the suggestion of virtual simulation as discussed for claim 2). Furthermore, the print head can have a first moving direction (note figure 4, page 4, translation), where the grid be considered as giving print units (note pages 5-6, translation) and the print units at an outermost side can be parallel to the first direction, or the substrate can be expressed only by grids (note figure 4, including the non-flat area).
As to also having a moving direction of the substrate in a second direction so that, for example, the print unit can be not parallel to the first direction or second direction, ‘378 further describes inkjet printing from an inkjet head (note figure 1, page 2, translation). ‘378 indicates that when printing, recording heads/print heads can move in a direction normal to that of the substrate (recording image) (note page 3, translation, figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 in view of ‘436, (1) EITHER Sasayama OR Miyoshi and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 to also move the substrate in a direction normal (second direction) to that of the print head as suggested by ‘378, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘280 indicates ink jet printing with moving print heads, and ‘378 indicates that such inkjet coating with can also be provided with movement of the substrate as well, in a second direction normal to the first direction of the print head.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘280 in view of ‘436, (1) EITHER Sasayama OR Miyoshi and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 as applied to claims 1-8, 13-19 and 21 above, and further in view of Japan 2005-014420 (hereinafter ‘420).
Claims 10, 11: as to in the generating a virtual substrate, a target ejection of ink amount, etc. are not applied to the virtual substrate, and in the preforming virtual printing, the printing is performed in an up-counting manner, or in the generating a virtual substrate, the target ejection amount is applied to the substrate, and in the preforming virtual printing, the virtual printing is performed in a down-counting manner, in the overall simulation ‘280 would provide a virtual substrate and further target ejection ink amounts, noting page 4, translation, but as worded for the “generating a virtual substrate”, the ink can be virtually applied at this point or later in what would be called the print path selection, or performing virtual printing with an expectation of the same results, since the same features would be provided in the overall process. As to providing, in the simulation step virtual printing with up- or down- counting manner,
‘420 describes how ink jet printing can be provided (note 0001), using print head (note figure 5, 0032). It is described how the print head can move the head with carriage movement, where the scanning movement control can use up-counting during forward movement and down-counting during backwards movement (note 0045, 0013), which can control/detect scanning position (note 0045, 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘280 in view of ‘436, (1) EITHER Sasayama OR Miyoshi and (2) EITHER alone OR further in view of ‘557 to provide the simulation with virtual printing with an up-counting or down-counting manner as suggested by ‘420 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results as ‘280 is providing inkjet printing with a movable printing head, and ‘420 indicates that when providing such printing, up-counting or down-counting depending on printer head movement can be used to help control/detect position, and would be used in a ”virtual” printing to correspond to that used in actual printing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered.
(A) Note the adjustments to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the new 35 USC 112 rejections.
(B) As to the arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections, it is argued that the cited art does not teach or suggest a relative grade for each nozzle, where Sasayama only discloses identifying misfiring nozzles, so that the nozzles directly adjacent the misfiring nozzles can be used instead and Miyoshi only determines if a nozzle is functioning or not, which would not determine a relative grade for all nozzles which would then be used to determine a print path set.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. Sasayama and Miyoshi would suggest determining relative grades of nozzles to the extent claimed (noting as well the 35 USC 112 rejections as to the use of “relative” grades). As to Sasayama, as discussed in the rejection above, it determines non-uniformity/misfiring direction for each nozzle, and can be considered as providing or suggesting to provide “relative” grading into at least sets of “non-misfiring” (higher grade) and “misfiring” (lower grade) nozzles for each nozzle, where it would have been obvious to provide that the print path set would be determined based on these relative gradings, since one would be suggested to select the paths using the nozzles that are higher grade/not mis-firing to provide more efficient printing with less correction needed. As to Miyoshi, as discussed in the rejection above, it indicates to sort all nozzles into “good condition level” (higher grade) nozzles or defective condition nozzles (lower grade), where it would have been obvious that the print path would be determined based on these relative gradings, since one would want to select the paths using the nozzles that give better results. Categorizing the nozzles into functional or not would still give relative grading since functional can be considered a higher grade than non-functional, and it would clearly be suggested to use functional nozzles over non-functional nozzles in a print path.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights