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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed 01/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 18-20 recognize the “non-transitory computer readable medium” of claim 17, but state the limitation is from claim 15 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“step” in claims 2-5, 7, and 18-20.
“steps” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 6,14, and 19 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 6, 14, and 19, examiner is unsure how the invention will print with two modes at the same time. Is the invention printing with both modes at the same time or in sequence? If it is in sequence, which mode is first and which mode is second?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praharaj et al. (US 10999449 B1) in view of Tsukamoto (JP 2012045797 A) and Sato et al. (US 9586420 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Praharaj teaches a method to reduce satellites when printing from a printer (Column 1, lines 25-28 describe how there is a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and an apparatus that measures and adjusts the printing of an image based on the blur of the print job.), the printer (Figure 2 displays a “printer 106” introduced in column 2, lines 60-64.) including a printhead (Figure 2 displays a “printhead 210” described in column 3, lines 51-54) having a plurality of inkjets (Column 3, lines 58-60 describes how the embodiment of the invention may deploy a plurality of different “printheads 210” other than the “single printhead 210” shown in Figure 2. Therefore, it is obvious the embodiment may also use a printhead with a plurality of inkjets), a media transport (Figure 2 displays a “transport belt 202” introduced in column 3, lines 44-45) and a controller (Figure 1 displays a “processor 102” described to also be known as the controller in column 3, lines 55-57), the controller operatively connected to the printhead (column 2, lines 62-63 describes how the embodiment may include the “processor 102” communicatively coupled to the “printer 106”.), and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executed by a processor (Column 1, lines 35-40 describe how there is a non-transitory computer readable medium, and an apparatus that causes the method to be performed when executed by the processor.).
The method comprising:
moving a media sheet relative to the printhead in a process direction via the media transport (Column 3, lines 51-57 describes how the “transport belt 202” moves the “print media 114” in a “process direction (as shown by an arrow 216)”) so that an ink image printed on the media sheet has a leading edge and trailing edge (Figure 3 displays a “trail edge line 302” and “lead edge line 306” that may be printed on the “print media 114” relative to the “cross-process direction 314” and “process direction 312” described in Column 4, lines 17-23);
b) analyzing ink image content data via the controller to identify ink image features in the ink image content data (column 3, lines 6-11 describes how the “processor 102” analyzes the captured printed images on the “print media 114” that is scanned by the “scanner 108”.) that are to be printed at the leading edge and the trailing edge of the ink image to be printed on the media sheet in the process direction (Figure 2 displays the image being printed by the “printhead 210” in the “process direction 216”);
c) selecting the inkjets via the controller to print the ink image content data onto the media sheet in the process direction (Column 3, line 51-57 describes how the “processor 102” can determine when the “printhead 210” dispenses the “print fluid 212” onto the “print media 114”.); and
d) operating the selected inkjets via the controller to print portions of the ink image features at the leading edge and the trailing edge of the ink image that corresponds to the ink image content data (Column 3, lines 25-32 describe how the “processor 102” adjusts the “print parameter adjustments 112” including changing the size of the image to reduce)
Praharaj fails to teach printing using multi-ejection waveforms
However, Tsukamoto teaches printing using multi-ejection waveforms (Paragraph [0007] describes the ink jet head including a “waveform generating means which generates a reference driving waveform that includes a plurality of ejection waveform elements)
Praharaj and Tsukamoto are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a printer and a method of printing. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of printing, the printer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executed by a processor taught by Praharaj to also apply printing using multi-ejection waveforms taught by Tsukamoto. This would have been done for the purpose of being able to select the waveform element corresponding to the desired dot size (Tsukamoto, Paragraph [0035]).
Praharaj fails to teach the leading edge printed with ink drops having a first size, and the trailing edge printed with one of ink drops having a second size and fewer ink drops than the leading edge.
However, the combination of Tsukamoto and Praharaj teaches the leading edge printed with ink drops having a first size, and the trailing edge printed with one of ink drops having a second size (Sato, figure 3 displays different sizes that is printed onto the “paper P” where the words printed closer to the “margin region SY”, which equates to the leading edge shown by Praharaj when matching the “processing direction 312” of Praharaj with the “feeding direction F” of Sato, are bolder than the words printed closer to the bottom “margin region SY”.) and fewer ink drops than the leading edge. (Tsukamoto, figure 7 displays the correlation between the size of the dot size and the amount of droplets and how they are proportional described in paragraph [0047].)
Praharaj and the combination of Sato and Tsukamoto are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a method of printing and the use of a printer. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of printing, the printer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executed by a processor taught by Praharaj to also apply the leading edge printed with ink drops having a first size, and the trailing edge printed with one of ink drops having a second size and fewer ink drops than the leading edge taught by the combination of Sato and Tsukamoto. This would have been done for the purpose of maintaining the ability to change the size of a printed image in an effort to reduce blurry images (Praharaj, column 3, lines 30-31) while still achieving both the recording of the portion requiring high coverage in the image and recording of the portion requiring high-definition image quality (Tsukamoto, paragraph [0074]).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Praharaj et al. (US 10999449 B1) in view of Tsukamoto (JP 2012045797 A) and Sato et al. (US 9586420 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Olson et al. (US 20130076817 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, combination of Praharaj, Tsukamoto, and Sato teaches the method of Claims 1 and 9 respectively,
Praharaj fails to teach wherein one of the second size ink drops are smaller than the first size ink drops, and the printer is a 3D printer.
However, Olson teaches wherein one of the second size ink drops are smaller than the first size ink drops (Sato, figure 3 displays different sizes that is printed onto the “paper P” where the words printed closer to the “margin region SY”, which equates to the leading edge shown by Praharaj when matching the “processing direction 312” of Praharaj with the “feeding direction F” of Sato, are bolder than the words printed closer to the bottom “margin region SY”. Tsukamoto, figure 7 displays the correlation between the size of the dot size and the amount of droplets and how they are proportional described in paragraph [0047]. Therefore, the smaller sized print of Sato would also be smaller in ink drop size.)
Praharaj and the combination of Sato and Tsukamoto are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a method of printing and the use of a printer. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of printing, the printer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executed by a processor taught by Praharaj to also apply wherein one of the second size ink drops are smaller than the first size ink drops, and the printer is a 3D printer taught by the combination of Sato and Tsukamoto. This would have been done for the purpose of maintaining the ability to change the size of a printed image in an effort to reduce blurry images (Praharaj, column 3, lines 30-31) while still achieving both the recording of the portion requiring high coverage in the image and recording of the portion requiring high-definition image quality (Tsukamoto, paragraph [0074]).
Praharaj also fails to teach the printer is a 3D printer.
However, the printer is a 3D printer (Paragraph [0139] describes a generic “printer 301” that is capable of printing on a 3D substrate which is referred to as “three-dimensional printing” in paragraph [0057].).
Modified Praharaj and Olson are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving a method of printing and a printer. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of printing, the printer, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that are executed by a processor taught by Praharaj to also apply the printer is a 3D printer taught by Olson. This would have been done for the purpose of allowing the user to print any pattern with ink jet technology on any three-dimensional substrate to create realistic images (Olson, paragraph [0053] and [0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, 18, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, the primary reason for allowance of claims 2, 10, and 18 is the inclusion of the step d) including operating the selected inkjets to emit drops with a first number of ejections at the leading edge of the ink image, and to emit drops with a second number of ejections less than the first number of ejections at the trailing edge of the ink image.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the primary reason for allowance of claims 3 and 11 is the inclusion of the, the step d) including operating the selected inkjets to print the ink image via the inkjets emitting multiple-ejection drops, with the inkjets emitting first volume drops via a first number of ejections per drop, and second volume drops via a second number of ejections per drop, the second number of ejections per drop being less than the first number of ejections per drop resulting in the second volume drops being smaller in volume than the first volume drops.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the primary reason for allowance of claim 4 and 12 is the inclusion of the step d) including operating the selected inkjets via a plurality of full-length waveforms, a particular first waveform having a first voltage to drive the selected inkjets at the leading edge of the ink image, and a particular second waveform having a second voltage lower than the first voltage to drive the selected inkjets at the trailing edge of the ink image.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the primary reason for allowance of claims 5 and 13 is the inclusion of the step d) including operating the selected inkjets via a plurality of full-length waveforms, a particular first waveform having a first waveform frequency to drive the selected inkjets at the leading edge of the ink image, and a particular second waveform having a second waveform frequency lower than the first waveform frequency of the particular first waveform to drive the selected inkjets at the trailing edge of the ink image.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, the primary reason for allowance of claim 4 is the inclusion of the step d) including modifying an ejection waveform between the leading edge and the trailing edge of the ink image so that the inkjets eject fewer drops of ink at the trailing edge than at the leading edge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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) 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.
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853