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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's argument that the Profaca reference (re: paragraph 0272) “does not teach or suggest that "the controller compensates for the abnormal nozzle by not using normal nozzles" as recited in claim 1”, please note that the two rows of nozzles that are “unused and/or used for redundancy” may be considered not normal since they are not needed by the head cartridge for its normal printing operation - i.e., they are used to compensate for dead nozzles but are not normal nozzles, and therefore the limitation of “not using normal nozzles” is met as written. Please note that, as previously noted on Page 3 of the previous Office Action, the claim does not define what qualities or properties determine whether a nozzle should be classified as a ‘normal’ or an ‘abnormal’ nozzle.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5-6, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims have been withdrawn from consideration in response to the Restriction Requirement mailed, but are improperly identified as “(Original)”. Withdrawn claims must be listed as “(Withdrawn)” or “(Original – Withdrawn)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, and 7-12 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 recites “wherein the controller compensates for the abnormal nozzle by not using normal nozzles”, in lines 8-9, but the disclosure – at least in paragraphs 0085-0093 and their corresponding figures 10-12 – teaches different examples where the controller shifts the jetting data so that a ‘normal nozzle’ compensates for an ‘non-jetting’/’abnormal’ nozzle [e.g. 310h in fig. 10, “the eighth nozzle 310h jets the substrate treatment liquid 240 at the (m, f) position (which is the position of the non-jetting/abnormal nozzle). Since the eighth nozzle 310h is a nozzle that can normally jet the substrate treatment liquid 240, it is possible to solve the problem of the substrate treatment liquid 240 not being jetted again at the (m, f) position in the second swath” (paragraph 0090; emphasis added.)] Even though some nozzles are processed as unused nozzles during the compensation method, this processing step is done so that normal nozzles can jet the liquid at a location meant to be jetted by an abnormal nozzle, contradicting the limitation as written. Claims 2, 4, and 7-12 are rejected the same way since they depend on claim 1 and contain all of its limitations.
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, 2, 4, and 7-12 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 recites the limitation “a controller detecting an abnormal nozzle among the plurality of nozzles and controlling the nozzles, wherein the controller compensates for the abnormal nozzle by not using normal nozzles” in lines 6-9. As previously noted on the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 22 October 2025, it is not clear what qualities or properties determine whether each nozzle in the inkjet head unit should be classified as an ‘abnormal’ nozzle or a ‘normal’ nozzle. Claims 2, 4, and 7-12 are rejected the same way since they depend on claim 1 and contain all of its limitations.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomi et al. (JP 2003-251243 – hereinafter Gomi) in view of Profaca et al. (US 2012/0092419 – hereinafter Profaca.)
Regarding claim 1,
Gomi discloses a substrate treatment apparatus [10 in fig. 1] comprising:
a process processing unit [28 in fig. 3] supporting a substrate [W in figs. 1 and 3] while the substrate is being treated [paragraph 0066];
an inkjet head unit [26 in figs. 1 and 3] comprising a plurality of nozzles [38 in fig. 1] and jetting a substrate treatment liquid onto the substrate to treat the substrate [paragraphs 0066 and 0070];
a gantry unit [24 / 25 in fig. 3] moving the inkjet head unit on the substrate [paragraph 0066]; and
a controller [162 in fig. 4] detecting an abnormal nozzle among the plurality of nozzles [from the output from camera 70 / 72 in figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs 0066 and 0078] and controlling the nozzles [to compensate for faulty nozzles; paragraph 0078; also note that the control section controls all the functions of the apparatus.]
Gomi teaches performing a nozzle replacement operation to compensate for faulty/abnormal nozzles [paragraphs 0078 and 0084] but fails to expressly disclose wherein the controller compensates for the abnormal nozzle by not using normal nozzles.
However, Profaca discloses a liquid ejecting apparatus comprising: a paper feeding apparatus, an inkjet head comprising a plurality of nozzles and a controller controlling the nozzles, wherein the controller compensates for an abnormal nozzle by not using normal nozzles [i.e. unused nozzles; paragraph 0272; please note that the two rows of nozzles that are “unused and/or used for redundancy” may be considered not normal since they are not needed by the head cartridge for its normal printing operation - i.e., they are used to compensate for dead nozzles but are not normal nozzles, and therefore the limitation of “not using normal nozzles” is met as written since it has not been made clear what qualities or properties determine whether a nozzle should be classified as a ‘normal’ or an ‘abnormal’ nozzle; also note that the disclosure of the present invention teaches different examples where the controller shifts the jetting data so that a ‘normal nozzle’ is used to compensate for an ‘non-jetting’/’abnormal’ nozzle; see paragraphs 0085-0093, figures 10-12, and 112 Rejections above.]
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 the Gomi invention to include means for compensating for an abnormal nozzle by not using normal nozzles as taught by Profaca for the purpose of not negatively affecting print density and having a better print quality.
Regarding claim 2,
In the obvious combination, Gomi further discloses wherein when it is determined that there is the abnormal nozzle among the nozzles in a previous swath, the controller compensates for the abnormal nozzle by not using the normal nozzles [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when / if"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 4,
In the obvious combination, Profaca further discloses wherein the controller processes a plurality of nozzles located on one side in an arrangement structure among the nozzles as unused nozzles or processes nozzles respectively located on both sides as unused nozzles [paragraph 0272.]
Regarding claim 7,
In the obvious combination, Profaca further discloses wherein the controller processes some of the nozzles as unused nozzles [paragraph 0272.]
Regarding claim 8,
In the obvious combination, Profaca further discloses wherein the controller determines the number of unused normal nozzles according to the number of abnormal nozzles [paragraph 0272.]
Regarding claim 9,
In the obvious combination, Profaca further discloses wherein the number of unused normal nozzles is greater than the number of abnormal nozzles [this is implicit from the disclosure since two rows of nozzles are unused, out of five rows of nozzles total; see paragraph 0272.]
Regarding claim 10,
In the obvious combination, Profaca further discloses wherein the controller compensates for the abnormal nozzle by shifting all nozzles except for unused nozzles [paragraph 0272.]
Regarding claim 11,
In the obvious combination, Profaca further discloses wherein the controller determines a direction in which the all nozzles are to be shifted according to the positions of the unused nozzles [paragraph 0272.]
Regarding claim 12,
In the obvious combination, Profaca further discloses wherein the controller constructs a nozzle map by mapping a jetting position of each nozzle for each swath and identifies the position of the abnormal nozzle based on the nozzle map [paragraphs 0264, 0272, and 0276; as applied to the Gomi reference.]
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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 X 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights