DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 10-14 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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) 1, 7-9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerstens (5,774,224) in view of Kim et al. (2016/0054235), Friedrich et al. (2009/0180106) and Harjee et al. (2015/0099059).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 15 and 16, Kerstens teaches a ink droplet volume measurement apparatus, inkjet printing apparatus and ink droplet volume determining method comprising:
an oblique illumination device (fig. 1, item 22) configured to emit light (fig. 1, item 22) at a first angle (fig. 1, angle 34) to round objects deposited onto a substrate (fig. 1, item 16);
an imaging device (fig. 1, item 28), positioned above the round objects deposited onto the substrate (see fig. 1, note that device 28 is in a higher place than round object 18. Note that Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “above” as “in…a higher place than”), configured to acquire an image comprising both the contour of each round object and the shadow of each round object generated by the oblique illumination device (see fig. 1 cols. 5-6, lines 65-14); and
a calculation device (fig. 1, item 84) configured to measure, from the plan view image, a radius B (fig. 4, item 65a) of each liquid ink droplet from the contour of the liquid ink droplet and a length A (fig. 4, note that line 65 includes the length of the shadow) of the shadow of the liquid ink droplet, wherein the radius B and the length A are measured along a line extending through a center (fig. 4, note unlabeled center of contour 18) of the contour of the liquid ink droplet, calculate a height of the liquid ink droplet from the measured radius B and the measured length A (col. 7, lines 2-18).
Kerstens does not expressly disclose wherein the height is also derived from the first angle or acquiring a plan view.
Kim teaches an oblique illumination device with a camera directly over top of the item to be illuminated so as to acquire a plan view. Kim also teaches using a length width of an object, a length of the objects shadow and an angle of incident light on the object to obtain the height of the object (Kim, see figs. 2, 5, [0048]-[0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reposition the camera disclosed by Kerstens in the manner disclosed by Kim because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known camera angle for another to obtain predictable results.
Kerstens in view of Kim does not expressly teach wherein volume is calculated based on the height h and the measured radius. Friedrich et al. teaches this (Friedrich, [0089]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to derive an object volume from the radius and height of the object, as disclosed by Friedrich, in the device disclosed by Kerstens in view of Kim because doing so would allow for calculation of the volume of the object. In other words, because Kerstens does not go into specifics about how it calculates volume, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to look to Friedrich for such a teaching.
Kerstens in view of Kim and Friedrich does not teach wherein the round objects are liquid ink droplets, an inkjet head with nozzles for ejecting the liquid ink droplets onto the substrate or a controller to control the ink jet head to eject the liquid ink droplets. Harjee teaches this (Harjee, [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the volume determination technique disclosed by Kerstens in view of Kim and Friedrich to determine ink droplet volumes of Harjee because doing so would allow for a more thorough volume measurement technique, thereby allowing for more precise calibration of droplet volumes in Harjee’s printer.
Regarding claim 7, Kerstens in view of Kim, Friedrich and Harjee teaches ink droplet volume measurement apparatus of claim 1, wherein 10 the first angle is greater than about 0 degrees and smaller than about 90 degrees (Kerstens, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kerstens in view of Kim, Friedrich and Harjee teaches ink droplet volume measurement apparatus of claim 1, wherein the imaging device includes at least one of an area camera that captures an image of a predetermined unit area or a line scan camera that captures an image in a predetermined line unit (Kerstens, see fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights