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 12/10/25 arguments with respect to the 112b rejections are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections are not persuasive as they merely indicate that applicant is delaying action to overcome the double patenting rejections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections with respect to Krieger et al. (US 20190077143 A1) and Otani et al. (US 6106094 A) are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections with respect to Billow (US 2005/0083364 A1) and Van De (CN 101267948 A) are not persuasive. Regarding Billow, applicant’s argument that Billow only teaches multiple print passes for printing a test pattern is not persuasive. In para 74, Billow indicates that multiple print passes “may” be used, which would suggest to one of ordinary skill, that a single pass (simultaneous ejection from all nozzles) is inherently used. Regarding Van De, see at least fig. 5A: the print pattern inherently implies simultaneous ejection from all nozzles.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/338728 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12-13 of the instant application is/are anticipated by claims 3 and 8 of 18/338728.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/338728 in view of Mita (US 2012/0249673 A1).
Regarding claim 16, claims 3 and 8 of 18/338728 disclose all the limitations of claim 16 except for the following italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the columns and rows are arranged in form of a parallelogram.
However, Mita teaches the italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the columns and rows are arranged in form of a parallelogram (see Mita’s fig. 3).
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 claims 3 and 8 of 18/338728 with the teachings of Mita, for the purpose of utilizing a standard printhead format in order to increase print resolution.
Regarding claim 18, claims 3 and 8 of 18/338728 disclose all the limitations of claim 18 except for the following italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the at least two printing heads are attached to a bar extending transverse to an advance direction of the printing device.
However, Mita teaches the italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the at least two printing heads are attached to a bar extending transverse to an advance direction of the printing device (see Mita’s fig. 2).
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 claims 3 and 8 of 18/338728 with the teachings of Mita, for the purpose of utilizing a standard pagewidth printhead format in order to increase throughput.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Billow (US 2005/0083364 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Billow discloses A method for aligning printing heads (31, fig. 12, para 75) of a printing device (see fig. 10), the printing heads being two-dimensional printing heads (see fig. 12) comprising a plurality of nozzles (see fig. 12), each printing head has nozzles arranged in columns and rows (see fig. 12), wherein each column and row has at least two nozzles (see fig. 12), the method comprising the following steps:
dispensing an ink drop at each of a plurality of nozzles arranged in the columns and rows of every printing head simultaneously to print a pattern of dots that reproduces a geometric pattern of the nozzles of the printing heads on a substrate (see fig. 2-5 and 8-9),
capturing a printed image of the pattern by a camera (inherent in step 204, fig. 6, para 89),
determining a position and/or orientation of each of the printing heads based on the image captured by the camera and determining a deviation of the position and/or orientation of each printing head from a target position and/or orientation (see fig. 6, para 82-116 or fig. 7, para 117-121), and
adjusting the position and/or the orientation of the printing heads based on the determined deviation (see fig. 6, para 116).
Regarding claim 5, Billow further discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a delay parameter for at least one printing head of the printing heads in order to compensate a misalignment of the at least one printing head along an advance direction of the printing device (see para 116).
Regarding claim 7, Billow further discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising: modifying the dispensation of an ink drop from a nozzle in terms of timing with respect to the dispense of ink drops from other nozzles of a printing head of the printing heads for a subsequent printing process if a deviation has been detected between a pattern of dots printed by the printing head and the nozzle pattern (see para 116).
Regarding claim 9, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 12, Billow further discloses The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the control unit is configured to individually control a timing of a dispensation of ink drops from every nozzle of a printing head of the at least two printing heads (inherent in Billow).
Regarding claim 13, Billow further discloses The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the control unit is configured to control a timing of a dispensation of ink drops from the different printing heads of the at least two printing heads (inherent in Billow).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van De (CN 101267948 A).
Explicit item-to-item matching has been omitted due to limited resources. Van De: see at least fig. 5 and pg. 5, line 26 through pg. 14, line 6 of translation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billow (US 2005/0083364 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Billow further discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein a pixel size of the camera is larger than a distance between two neighboring columns of an image printed with a highest print resolution (*This appears to be inherent in para 82, 90-91, 94, 96, and 110. However, even in the event that this is not inherent in these paragraphs, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill because of the vast range of pixel resolutions that are readily commercially available. It would have been obvious to select a high enough resolution for capturing the printed image in order to make the captured image usable. Determining a high enough resolution would at most involve limited experimentation.);
the pixel size of the camera being defined as a width of a field of view of the camera measured on the substrate along a direction transverse to an advance direction of the printing device, divided by a number of pixels along the width of the captured image (see * above).
Regarding claim 3, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 10, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 11, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 2. Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De (CN 101267948 A).
Explicit item-to-item matching has been omitted due to limited resources.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billow (US 2005/0083364 A1) in view of Mita (US 2012/0249673 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Billow discloses all the limitations of claim 16 except for the following italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the columns and rows are arranged in form of a parallelogram.
However, Mita teaches the italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the columns and rows are arranged in form of a parallelogram (see Mita’s fig. 3).
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 Billow with the teachings of Mita, for the purpose of utilizing a standard printhead format in order to increase print resolution.
Regarding claim 18, Billow discloses all the limitations of claim 18 except for the following italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the at least two printing heads are attached to a bar extending transverse to an advance direction of the printing device.
However, Mita teaches the italicized portion: The printing device according to claim 9, wherein the at least two printing heads are attached to a bar extending transverse to an advance direction of the printing device (see Mita’s fig. 2).
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 Billow with the teachings of Mita, for the purpose of utilizing a standard pagewidth printhead format in order to increase throughput.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De (CN 101267948 A) in view of Mita (US 2012/0249673 A1).
Explicit item-to-item matching has been omitted due to limited resources.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN SEO whose telephone number is (571)270-1327. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Ricardo I Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
/JUSTIN SEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
February 12, 2026