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 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s efforts in clarifying that the claimed “interval threshold” corresponds to disclosed second interval threshold 312. Applicant references paragraphs 34-37 of the instant PGPub in support (pages 11-12 of remarks).
In the case that the claimed interval thresholds corresponds to the second interval threshold 312, however, it remains unclear how the claimed “interval” corresponds to the underlying disclosure. Specifically, the written description introduces two intervals 309 and 309’. It remains Examiner’s best understanding that the original disclosure fails to compare the same interval to the same interval threshold to effect both print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phases and the print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase. Please see the 112 rejection for Examiner’s full reasoning.
In light of the above, Examiner has not withdrawn the rejection under 35 USC 112.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
Given the manner in which the series of steps are provided in the claim, an artisan would not be able to determine the point of infringement.
Specifically, the claim body contains a series of steps, wherein the last two presented steps are separated by “and/or,” introducing alternative interpretations of the claimed method. If the “and” conjunction dominates the series, then the claimed method may be interpreted to require each recited step in the series of “determining an interval,” “effecting at least one print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase,” and “effecting at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase” (i.e. steps A, B, and C). In another interpretation, the claimed method may be interpreted to require “determining an interval,” but only one of “effecting at least one print-image dependent pre-ejection pulse phase” and “effecting at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase” (i.e. step A, and step B or C). Alternatively, if the “or” conjunction dominates, the claimed method may require only one of the recited steps (i.e. step A, B, or C).
Because it is not clear which of the steps in the claim series are actually required by the claimed method, an artisan would not be able to determine the point of infringement.
Examiner also continues to question how the claimed “interval” and “interval threshold” correspond to the underlying disclosure. The most pertinent portion of Applicant’s specification appears on pages 9-11 of the originally filed written description (corresponding to paragraphs 32-37 of the Applicant’s PGPub). According to Applicant’s most recent remarks, the claimed “interval threshold” corresponds to the underlying disclosed interval threshold 312 (page 13 of remarks).
However, page 10 teaches that pre-ejection pulse phase 314 is effected if interval 309’ is greater than the interval threshold 312, and page 11 teaches that a pre-ejection pulse phase 314 is effected again, periodically, as this comparison remains true. Page 11 then teaches that pre-ejection pulse phase 304 is effected if interval 309 (not 309’) is greater than the interval threshold 312.
In other words, Applicant’s original disclosure appears to teach that different intervals (309/309’) are compared to the interval threshold 312 to determine whether to effect a print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase 314 or print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase 304.
Further confusing matters, the interval 309’ is described in Applicant’s specification as one in which “the precise value possibly cannot be determined” (paragraphs 34, 36 of PGPub). More specifically, the interval 309’ seems to define the period of time between a first printed dot, and a second dot that has not yet been provided by the print data. If the interval 309’ does not have a determinable value, how can it be compared to an interval threshold so as to effect the claimed pre-ejection pulse phases?
In light of the above, it continues to be unclear how the claimed invention, in which the same interval is compared to the same interval threshold to determine effecting of the different pulses phases 314, 304, corresponds to Applicant’s underlying disclosure.
Regarding claims 2, 5-11, and 15-16:
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of claims 1/12, and thus also fail to meet the requirements of this statute.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights