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 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two different arrangements of heads in the same physical arrangement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In fact, the claim recites a case “where the arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads is a first head arrangement” and a case “where the arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads is a second head arrangement that is different from the first head arrangement”, which suggests two different (physical) arrangements. Also note that Applicant statement that “Matsumoto discloses that, when the physical arrangement of heads is in a staggered pattern, the arrangement of head 361-367 is displayed in the staggered pattern on the screen 359, and when the physical arrangement of heads is in a grid pattern, the arrangement of head 361-367 is displayed in the grid pattern on the screen 359” seems to further signify that the Matsumoto reference meets the claim as written.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(/)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (US 2019/0375210 – hereinafter Matsumoto.)
Regarding claim 1,
Matsumoto discloses a management apparatus [10 in fig. 1] for managing a liquid ejecting apparatus [30 in fig. 1] including a plurality of liquid ejecting heads [52 in fig. 1] that eject liquid [paragraph 0029], the management apparatus comprising:
a display control portion [202 in fig. 8] that displays an arrangement image indicating arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads in a display region [as seen in fig. 10B; paragraphs 0086-0087 and 0094-0097]; and
a first receiving portion [201 in fig. 8] that receives an operation from a user on the arrangement image [paragraphs 0097-0100], wherein
the arrangement image includes a plurality of head display regions with display modes varied depending on the arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads [paragraphs 0094 and 0097-0098, and figs. 5 and 10B],
in a case where the arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads is a first head arrangement [staggered; as seen in fig. 2], the display control portion displays a first arrangement image [as seen in fig. 5; paragraph 0047], and
in a case where the arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads is a second head arrangement [grid pattern] that is different from the first head arrangement, the display control portion displays a second arrangement image that is different the first arrangement image [as seen in fig. 10B.]
Regarding claim 2,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein the display control portion divides the plurality of head display regions for each color of liquid ejected by the plurality of liquid ejecting heads [as seen in figs. 5 and 10B; paragraphs 0047-0048, 0094 and 0097-0098.]
Regarding claim 3,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein the display control portion varies the display modes of the plurality of head display regions depending on the number of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads [as seen in figs. 5 and 10B; paragraphs 0094 and 0097-0098.]
Regarding claim 4,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein
each of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads includes a plurality of nozzles that eject liquid [paragraph 0075], and
when an arrangement direction of the plurality of nozzles is defined as a first direction and a direction intersecting with the first direction is defined as a second direction, in a case in which the plurality of liquid ejecting heads include two or more liquid ejecting heads arranged in the first direction, the display control portion displays two or more head display regions corresponding to the two or more liquid ejecting heads among the plurality of head display regions side by side in a direction corresponding to the first direction [as seen in figs. 5 and 10B; paragraphs 0075, 0094 and 0097-0098; also, please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "in a case"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 5,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein each of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads includes a plurality of nozzles that eject liquid [paragraph 0075], and
when an arrangement direction of the plurality of nozzles is defined as a first direction and a direction intersecting with the first direction is defined as a second direction, in a case in which the plurality of liquid ejecting heads include two or more liquid ejecting heads arranged in the second direction, the display control portion displays two or more head display regions corresponding to the two or more liquid ejecting heads among the plurality of head display regions side by side in a direction corresponding to the second direction [as seen in figs. 5 and 10B; paragraphs 0075, 0094 and 0097-0098; also, please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "in a case"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 6,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein
each of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads includes a plurality of nozzles that eject liquid [paragraph 0075], and
when an arrangement direction of the plurality of nozzles is defined as a first direction and a direction intersecting with the first direction is defined as a second direction, the display control portion varies the display modes of the plurality of head display regions depending on whether or not the plurality of liquid ejecting heads include two liquid ejecting heads that are arranged to be adjacent to each other in the first direction and misaligned with each other in the second direction [as seen in fig. 5, the head modules are staggered; also, please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Regarding claim 7,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein
when the plurality of liquid ejecting heads include two liquid ejecting heads that are arranged to be adjacent to each other in the first direction and misaligned with each other in the second direction [as seen in fig. 5], the display control portion displays two head display regions corresponding to the two liquid ejecting heads among the plurality of head display regions to be adjacent to each other in a direction corresponding to the first direction and misaligned with each other in a direction corresponding to the second direction [please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Regarding claim 8,
Matsumoto further discloses the management apparatus further comprising a second receiving portion that receives an input from a user regarding arrangement information about the arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads [it is implicit that operation panel 120 will have various portions/areas for user input], wherein
the display control portion displays the arrangement image based on the arrangement information [paragraphs 0086-0087; also, please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Regarding claim 9,
Matsumoto further discloses the management apparatus further comprising an acquisition portion [204 in fig. 8] that acquires arrangement information about the arrangement of the plurality of liquid ejecting heads based on a result of imaging the plurality of liquid ejecting heads, wherein the display control portion displays the arrangement image based on the arrangement information [paragraphs 0145-0146.]
Regarding claim 10,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein
when the plurality of liquid ejecting heads include a liquid ejecting head in an error state, the display control portion displays an error image indicating the error state in the display region in addition to the arrangement image, or by varying the display mode of the arrangement image [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied; also, please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Regarding claim 11,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein
the display control portion varies a display mode of the error image according to a type of the error state [implicit that the information displayed depends on the state of the apparatus; also, please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Regarding claim 12,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein
when the first receiving portion receives an operation on a target head display region among the plurality of head display regions, the display control portion displays a property image indicating properties of a liquid ejecting head corresponding to the target head display region in the display region [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied; also, please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Regarding claim 13,
Matsumoto further discloses wherein
when the first receiving portion receives an operation on a target head display region among the plurality of head display regions, the display control portion displays an input image for receiving an input of a unique number of a liquid ejecting head corresponding to the target head display region in the display region [please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "when"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied; also, please note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, and that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).]
Regarding claims 14 and 15,
These method steps are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
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