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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Inventive Group II in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that inventive Groups I and II are not mutually exclusive, and thus a serious examination burden does not exist (pages 2-3 of remarks). This is not found persuasive because the claims as amended utilizes contingent claim language (i.e. “if … smaller than or a same size as an interval” / “if … greater than the interval”) that now presents the two effecting steps as mutually exclusive. In particular, the claims are presented such that both effecting steps cannot both be performed (i.e. either the interval ≤ threshold OR the interval > threshold: both cannot be simultaneously true). Therefore, the step of effecting a pre image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase is mutually exclusive to the step of effecting a print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7 and 9 are therefore withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 15 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.
Regarding claim 15:
Parent claim 12 requires a device configured to effect at least one print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase “if the interval is smaller than or the same size as an interval threshold”, and to effect at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase “if the interval is greater than the interval threshold.” However, claim 15 then requires the device to be configured to effect, between the same dot and the following dot, both the print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase (which requires an interval > interval threshold) AND the print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase (which requires the interval ≤ interval threshold). It is not clear how the same interval between two dots can simultaneously effect both the print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase and the print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase, when the same interval cannot be “smaller than or a same size” and simultaneously “greater than” the interval threshold. In other words, the current conditional claim language does not allow for effecting both the print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase and the print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase between the same two successive dots.
In view of the above, an artisan would not be able to determine the scope of invention and/or the point of infringement.
Claim Interpretation
The claim term “print image-dependent pre-ejection pulse phase” is interpreted to encompass pre-ejection pulse phases having one or more parameters that are dependent on the interval between dots of a print image, whereas the claim term “print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase” is interpreted to encompass pre-ejection pulse phases having one or more parameters that is not dependent upon the interval between dots of a print image.
Please note that even the print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase is disclosed as depending on the print image via effecting only when the interval between successive dots of the print image is greater than a threshold. Therefore, the above interpretation seems reasonable in view of the instant disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Ito (US 2012/0327148 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not constitute an indication of allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
Ito discloses a device/method for controlling the printing of a print image by inserting one or more pre-ejection pulses upon printing a print image with a nozzle of an inkjet printing device, the device configured for:
determining an interval (“non-ejection period”: paragraph 46) of a plurality of intervals between printing a dot (I1) of a plurality of dots and printing a following dot (I2) of a plurality of following dots with the nozzle (paragraph 46 & Fig. 9);
effecting at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase (“non-ejection drive”: paragraphs 57-61) with the nozzle if the interval is greater than an interval threshold (greater than predetermined length T / count k: paragraph 57 & Fig. 9).
Please note that, because the limitations of effecting pre-ejection pulse phases are presented conditionally and mutually exclusively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require both steps of effecting to be performed. Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016). See also MPEP 2111.04.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Hettler et al. (US 2019/0047284 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12:
Hettler et al. disclose a device/method for controlling the printing of a print image by inserting one or more pre-ejection pulses upon printing a print image with a nozzle of an inkjet printing device, the device configured for:
determining an interval (idle time ΔtTy) of a plurality of intervals between printing a dot (e.g. that at t3: Fig. 3) of a plurality of dots and printing a following dot (e.g. that at t6: Fig. 3) of a plurality of following dots with the nozzle (for nozzle column A: Fig. 3);
effecting at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase (“prefire/vibration cycle”: paragraph 64) with the nozzle if the interval is greater than the interval threshold (paragraphs 34, 51-52, 67-69 & Fig. 3).
Please note that, because the limitations of effecting pre-ejection pulse phases are presented conditionally and mutually exclusively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require both steps of effecting to be performed. Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016). See also MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 2:
Hettler et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that one or more parameters of the at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase are independent of the interval (the pre-ejection waveform parameters are set according to energy requirement for vibration and matched to the ink, not according to the idle time ΔtTy: paragraphs 34, 67-69).
Regarding claim 5:
Hettler et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the one or more parameters of the at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase comprise:
a workflow of a pre-ejection pulse of the at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase (paragraphs 67-69 & Figs. 4A-B).
Regarding claim 6:
Hettler et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the method comprises repeatedly checking, at a sequence of checkpoints in time and/or at a sequence of check lines of the print image, whether each respective interval of the plurality of intervals is greater than the interval threshold (idle times are determined at “all points in time … across numerous print lines”: paragraph 37); and
effecting a respective print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase for a respective interval as long as it is determined that the respective interval is greater than the interval threshold (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 8:
Hettler et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also the step of repeatedly effecting print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phases with the nozzle as long as the interval is greater than the interval threshold (paragraphs 37-38).
Regarding claim 10:
Hettler et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the inkjet printing device comprises a plurality of nozzles (A-O) for printing the plurality of dots and the plurality of following dots in a corresponding plurality of columns of the print image (paragraph 40 & Fig. 3),
wherein a defined nozzle for a defined column is designed to print the plurality of dots and the plurality of following dots in different lines of the defined column of the print image (Fig. 3),
wherein the interval indicates a number of lines in which no dots of the plurality of dots and the plurality of following dots are printed directly before the following dot by the defined nozzle (paragraph 36 & Fig. 3), and
wherein the method is executed for every nozzle of the plurality of nozzles (paragraphs 43-52 & Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11:
Hettler et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the method is repeated cyclically at a sequence of checkpoints in time and/or at a sequence of check lines of the print image (idle times are determined at “all points in time … across numerous print lines”: paragraph 37),
wherein directly successive checkpoints in time and/or directly successive check lines are spaced apart from one another corresponding to a cycle duration (“bit by bit”: paragraph 37-39 & Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16:
Hettler et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that a duration of the at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase and/or a number of pre-ejection pulses within the at least one print image-independent pre-ejection pulse phase has been established in advance of printing of the print image (paragraph 37-39).
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