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 without traverse of Invention I, Species A1, B1, and C1 in the reply filed on 23 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 December 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 January 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 5 and 10-12 are 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "fifth timing" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that the “fourth timing” is first introduced in claim 3, but claim 5 depends on claim 4, which depends on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "sixth timing" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that the “fifth timing” is first introduced in claim 5, but claim 10 depends on claim 2. Claim 11 depends on claim 10 and is therefore rejected the same way.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "second non-printing" in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that the “first non-printing” is first introduced in claim 10, but claim 12 depends on claim 4
Claim 12 recites the limitation "seventh timing" in lines 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that the “fifth timing” is first introduced in claim 10, but claim 12 depends on claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 2020/0215834) in view of Kubo et al. (US 2022/0105722 – hereinafter Kubo.)
Regarding claim 1,
Bauer discloses a printing apparatus comprising:
a head [12 in figs. 1-8] including a nozzle surface [14 in figs. 1-2] provided with a plurality of nozzles for ejecting a liquid [paragraphs 1-2]; and
a component that changes a relative position of the head with respect to a workpiece [paragraph 0073, “The printhead 12 is accommodated in a not-depicted mount, using which it is movable horizontally and vertically in the drawing plane”], wherein
a first printing operation of performing printing on a first band region on the workpiece is executed by causing the head to eject the liquid while causing a change in the relative position of the head with respect to the workpiece [paragraphs 0045 and 0049], and
when a timing at which the first printing operation is started is set as a first timing,
a timing at which the first printing operation ends is set as a second timing,
a timing between the first timing and the second timing is set as a third timing, and
a distance between the plurality of nozzles and the workpiece along a normal direction of the nozzle surface is set as an ejection distance [clearance; paragraphs 0049-0050],
the ejection distance at one or both of the first timing and the second timing is more than the ejection distance at the third timing [paragraph 0051; the clearance/distance is increased during the printing operation when printing on top of an already-applied print layer, meaning that the distance at the end of the printing operation (second timing) will be more than the distance at one point in the third timing (i.e. toward the beginning of the printing operation, after the first timing ends.)]
Bauer discloses the printhead being accommodated in a mount to be movable horizontally and vertically [paragraph 0073], but fails to expressly disclose the component that changes a relative position of the head with respect to a workpiece being a robot that includes a plurality of joints configured to rotate around rotation axes different from each other.
However, Kubo discloses a printing apparatus [1000; figs.1A and 27] comprising:
a head [300 in figs. 1A-2] including a nozzle surface [302a in fig. 2] provided with a plurality of nozzles [302 in fig. 2] for ejecting a liquid [paragraph 0049]; and
robot [405 in figs. 27-28] that includes a plurality of joints [as seen in figs. 27-28] configured to rotate around rotation axes different from each other, and changes a relative position of the head with respect to a workpiece [100 in figs. 1A-1B and 27-28; paragraphs 0123-0126], wherein
a first printing operation of performing printing on a first band region on the workpiece is executed by causing the head to eject the liquid while causing the robot to change the relative position of the head with respect to the workpiece [paragraphs 0124-0126.]
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 the Bauer invention to include a robot that includes a plurality of joints configured to rotate around rotation axes different from each other and changes a relative position of the head with respect to a workpiece as taught by Kubo for the purpose of can accurately and quickly positioning the printhead at a predetermined position facing an object [paragraph 0124] of a large size/scale or complex geometry.
Regarding claim 2,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein the ejection distance at the first timing is more than the ejection distance at the third timing [depending on the shape of the workpiece; as seen in fig. 6, the nozzles in the center of the nozzle surface are at a greater distance from the workpiece at the left (i.e. the start of the printing operation) than at the right (while printing the concave surface having curvature axis M1.)]
Regarding claim 3,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein
when a timing between the first timing and the third timing is set as a fourth timing,
the ejection distance at the fourth timing is more than the ejection distance at the third timing, and is less than the ejection distance at the first timing [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.]
Regarding claim 4,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein the ejection distance at the second timing is more than the ejection distance at the third timing [paragraph 0051; the clearance/distance is increased during the printing operation when printing on top of an already-applied print layer, meaning that the distance at the end of the printing operation (second timing) will be more than the distance at one point in the third timing (i.e. toward the beginning of the printing operation, after the first timing ends.)]
Regarding claim 5,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein
when a timing between the second timing and the third timing is set as a fifth timing,
the ejection distance at the fifth timing is more than the ejection distance at the third timing, and is less than the ejection distance at the second timing [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, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 6,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein the ejection distance is constant over at least a part of a period including the third timing and not including the first timing and the second timing [depending on the shape of the workpiece.]
Regarding claim 7,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein a relative posture between the workpiece and the head is changed during the execution of the first printing operation [paragraph 0073; also note paragraphs 0124-0126 of Kubo.]
Regarding claim 8,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein
the workpiece has a first surface and a second surface facing a direction different from a direction of the first surface [as seen in figs. 4-5, 7 and 9],
a projecting corner by the first surface and the second surface is formed between the first surface and the second surface [as seen in figs. 7 and 9],
the first band region is a region within the first surface [as seen in fig. 7], and
when a position of the first surface to which the liquid is applied from the head at the first timing is set as a first position, and
a position of the first surface to which the liquid is applied from the head at the third timing is set as a third position,
the first position is closer to the corner and the second surface than the third position [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.]
Regarding claim 9,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein the first position is located at an end at which the corner is formed at the first surface [as seen in fig. 9; also note that this claim is based on the conditional limitation of claim 8, meaning that the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 10,
In the obvious combination, Kubo further discloses wherein
a first non-printing operation of not ejecting the liquid from the head while causing the robot to change the relative position between the workpiece and the head is executed immediately before the execution of the first printing operation [the robot will move to position the printhead at the desired drawing area before the printing operation is started; paragraphs 0123-0126], and
when any timing during the execution of the first non-printing operation is set as a sixth timing,
the ejection distance at the sixth timing is more than the ejection distance at the first timing [it is implicit and well-known that the robot will be at a greater distance from the desired drawing area when powered on before moving to the correct location; also, 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, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 11,
In the obvious combination, Kubo further discloses the printing apparatus further comprising:
a control portion [500 in fig. 11] that controls an operation of the robot [paragraph 0070], wherein
the control portion acquires path information on a set of a plurality of teaching points that define the relative position between the workpiece and the head in each of the first printing operation and the first non-printing operation in a virtual space [implicit from the teachings in paragraph 0124; “it is possible to previously teach data related to a movement of the multi-articulated robot 405”],
the plurality of teaching points include
a first teaching point which is a teaching point indicating the relative position between the workpiece and the head at the first timing,
a third teaching point which is a teaching point indicating the relative position between the workpiece and the head at the third timing, and
a sixth teaching point which is a teaching point indicating the relative position between the workpiece and the head at the sixth timing [as applied to the Kubo reference], and
in the virtual space, the ejection distance based on the first teaching point is less than the ejection distance based on the sixth teaching point [it is implicit and well-known that the robot will be at a greater distance from the desired drawing area when powered on before moving to the correct location; also, 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],
whereas Kubo teaches wherein
in the virtual space, the ejection distance based on the first teaching point is more than the ejection distance based on the third teaching point [depending on the shape of the workpiece; as seen in fig. 6, the nozzles in the center of the nozzle surface are at a greater distance from the workpiece at the left (i.e. the start of the printing operation) than at the right (while printing the concave surface having curvature axis M1); also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 12,
In the obvious combination, Bauer further discloses wherein
a second non-printing operation of not ejecting the liquid from the head while causing the robot to change the relative position between the workpiece and the head is executed immediately after the execution of the first printing operation [it is implicit and well-known that the printhead will not discharge ink/liquid when the printing operation ends, and that the robot will change the position of the printhead between printing operations according to the print data of the next one], and
when any timing during the execution of the second non-printing operation is set as a seventh timing,
the ejection distance at the seventh timing is more than the ejection distance at the second timing [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, see 112 Rejection above.]
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