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
Newly submitted claim 16 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Species A: the embodiment set forth in ¶0005 of the instant specification (corresponding to claims 1-4 and 7-9 and possibly a subset of apparatus claims) and
Species B: the embodiment set forth in ¶0100-0103 of the instant specification and/or Figure 10 (corresponding to claim 16 and possibly a subset of apparatus claims).
The species are independent or distinct because Species A is drawn a control portion that controls the head and the movement mechanism whereas Species B is drawn to making a recording pixel density in first edges, along a first sub scanning direction perpendicular to the first main scanning direction, of the first band region during the first printing operation be smaller than a recording density in a first intermediate area between the first edges by controlling an ejection amount of the liquid from the plurality of nozzle. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 10/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 5-6 and 10-15 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 7-9 have been amended. Claim 16 is new and has been added. Claim 16 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 16 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103. Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Kumagai (US 2022/0118680 A1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that substantially all elements recited in claim 5 are incorporated into amended claim 1 (Remarks, Pg 7). However, amended claim 1 does not include the limitations of intervening claim 2 from which claim 5 is dependent. Applicant’s arguments are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered.
Applicant further asserts that “the Examiner alleges that a width difference between the first and second widths at the first and second positions and an overlapping state between the first and second band regions are obvious because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's position is unreasonable. According to the claimed configuration, it is possible to effectively prevent white stripes from occurring by controlling an overlapping width even if the start position is shifted. Further, according to the claimed configuration, it is possible to prevent black stripes from occurring by controlling the ratios of the first and second overlapping widths to the first and second widths even if the start position is shifted. These are new results that could not have been unexpected” (Remarks, Pg 8-10). 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., effectively prevent white stripes from occurring by controlling an overlapping width even if the start position is shifted) 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).
Accordingly, based upon the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office Action mailed 08/07/2025 is maintained. The rejection of amended claims 1-4 and 7-9 is provided below.
Double Patenting. Applicant's remarks regarding the double patenting rejection of claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. A terminal disclaimer has not been filed.
Accordingly, based upon the reasons stated above, the double patenting rejection of claims 1-9 set forth in the Office Action mailed 08/07/2025 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Functional language is often associated with a "controller" in the claims (see control portion of instant claim 1). The specific language associated with the "controller" will determine what subject matter must be given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai (US 2022/0118680 A1).
Regarding claims 1-9, Kumagai teaches a three-dimensional object printing apparatus (three-dimensional (3D) object print apparatus 100) comprising a head (liquid ejecting unit 300) configured to eject a liquid to a printing region on a workpiece (workpiece W); a movement mechanism configured to change a relative position and posture between the workpiece and the head (robot 200); a control portion configured to control the head and the movement mechanism (controller 600, control module 500); wherein the control portion is further configured to execute a first printing operation of ejecting the liquid from the head to the workpiece while changing the relative position between the workpiece and the head along a first main scanning direction, execute a second printing operation of ejecting the liquid from the head to the workpiece while changing the relative position between the workpiece and the head along a second main scanning direction; and wherein the movement mechanism is configured to change one or both of a posture of the head and a posture of the workpiece between the first printing operation and the second printing operation (Fig 1 and ¶0019-0022,0080-0087,0092-0093).
Kumagai does not specify determine a width of a first band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the first printing operation and determine a width of a second band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the second printing operation, the width of the first band region at a first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a first width, the width of the first band region at a second position different from the first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a second width, the first width is less than the second width, and a part of the first band region overlaps with a part of the second band region at the first position, a width of a first portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the first position is defined as a first overlapping width, a width of a second portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the second position is defined as a second overlapping width, the first overlapping width is equal to or more than the second overlapping width, and a ratio of the first overlapping width to the first width is higher than a ratio of the second overlapping width to the second width; wherein at the first position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region, and at the second position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region; wherein at the second position, the first band region has both the portion that does not overlap with the second band region and the second portion that overlaps with the second band region; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; nor wherein the width of the first band region at a third position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a third width, and the third position is different from the first position and the second position, the first position is located between the second position and the third position, and the third width is less than the first width, and an entirety of the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the third position.
However, Kumagai teaches a three-dimensional object printing apparatus (three-dimensional (3D) object print apparatus 100) comprising a head (liquid ejecting unit 300) that ejects a liquid to a printing region on a workpiece (workpiece W), wherein control module 500 controls the ink ejecting operation of the liquid ejecting unit 300, wherein the control module 500 is a circuit that controls the ink ejecting operation of the liquid ejecting head 310 based on the signal D3 from the controller 600 and print data from the computer 700; wherein the 3D object print apparatus 100 sets a first route RU_1 based on the workpiece information regarding the location and shape of the workpiece W; the first route RU_1 is a route along which the first reference point TCP1 is to move in a first scan; wherein the 3D object print apparatus 100 also sets a second route RU_2 based on the workpiece information; the second route RU_2 is a route along which the second reference point TCP2 is to move in a second scan; wherein by setting both the first route RU_1 and the second route RU_2, the 3D object print apparatus 100 can generate the above route information db; wherein the first route RU_1 and the second route RU_2 may or may not coincide with each other; and wherein it is, however, preferable for both the first route RU_1 and the second route RU_2 to be completely or substantially parallel to each other and to completely or substantially coincide with each other as viewed from the direction normal to the surface WF (Fig 1 and ¶0019-0022,0080-0087,0092-0093).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Kumagai such that control module disclosed in Kumagai is configured to determine a width of a first band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the first printing operation and determine a width of a second band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the second printing operation, the width of the first band region at a first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a first width, the width of the first band region at a second position different from the first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a second width, the first width is less than the second width, and a part of the first band region overlaps with a part of the second band region at the first position, a width of a first portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the first position is defined as a first overlapping width, a width of a second portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the second position is defined as a second overlapping width, the first overlapping width is equal to or more than the second overlapping width, and a ratio of the first overlapping width to the first width is higher than a ratio of the second overlapping width to the second width; wherein at the first position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region, and at the second position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region; wherein at the second position, the first band region has both the portion that does not overlap with the second band region and the second portion that overlaps with the second band region; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; and wherein the width of the first band region at a third position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a third width, and the third position is different from the first position and the second position, the first position is located between the second position and the third position, and the third width is less than the first width, and an entirety of the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the third position with a reasonable expectation of success since Kumagai teaches the control module is a circuit that controls the ink ejecting operation of the liquid ejecting head based on the signal from the controller and print data from the computer to execute a first route and a second route to be completely or substantially parallel to each other and to completely or substantially coincide with each other (overlapping) as viewed from the direction normal to the surface WF (Kumagai, ¶0080).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/439883 (reference application) in view of Kumagai (US 2022/0118680 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-9, the limitations recited in claims 1-8 of the reference application in view of Kumagai disclose a similar apparatus.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in the reference application in view of Kumagai such that control module disclosed in Kumagai is configured to determine a width of a first band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the first printing operation and determine a width of a second band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the second printing operation, the width of the first band region at a first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a first width, the width of the first band region at a second position different from the first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a second width, the first width is less than the second width, and a part of the first band region overlaps with a part of the second band region at the first position, a width of a first portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the first position is defined as a first overlapping width, a width of a second portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the second position is defined as a second overlapping width, the first overlapping width is equal to or more than the second overlapping width, and a ratio of the first overlapping width to the first width is higher than a ratio of the second overlapping width to the second width; wherein at the first position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region, and at the second position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region; wherein at the second position, the first band region has both the portion that does not overlap with the second band region and the second portion that overlaps with the second band region; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; and wherein the width of the first band region at a third position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a third width, and the third position is different from the first position and the second position, the first position is located between the second position and the third position, and the third width is less than the first width, and an entirety of the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the third position with a reasonable expectation of success since Kumagai teaches the control module is a circuit that controls the ink ejecting operation of the liquid ejecting head based on the signal from the controller and print data from the computer to execute a first route and a second route to be completely or substantially parallel to each other and to completely or substantially coincide with each other (overlapping) as viewed from the direction normal to the surface WF (Kumagai, ¶0080).
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent Number 11,826,947 B2 (reference patent) in view of Kumagai (US 2022/0118680 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-9, the limitations recited in claims 1 and 10 of the reference patent in view of Kumagai disclose a similar apparatus.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in the reference patent in view of Kumagai such that control module disclosed in Kumagai is configured to determine a width of a first band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the first printing operation and determine a width of a second band region into which the liquid is ejected from the head in the second printing operation, the width of the first band region at a first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a first width, the width of the first band region at a second position different from the first position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a second width, the first width is less than the second width, and a part of the first band region overlaps with a part of the second band region at the first position, a width of a first portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the first position is defined as a first overlapping width, a width of a second portion at which the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the second position is defined as a second overlapping width, the first overlapping width is equal to or more than the second overlapping width, and a ratio of the first overlapping width to the first width is higher than a ratio of the second overlapping width to the second width; wherein at the first position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region, and at the second position, the first band region has a portion that does not overlap with the second band region; wherein at the second position, the first band region has both the portion that does not overlap with the second band region and the second portion that overlaps with the second band region; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; wherein the second position is a position at which the width of the first band region is the largest; and wherein the width of the first band region at a third position in the first main scanning direction is defined as a third width, and the third position is different from the first position and the second position, the first position is located between the second position and the third position, and the third width is less than the first width, and an entirety of the first band region overlaps with the second band region at the third position with a reasonable expectation of success since Kumagai teaches the control module is a circuit that controls the ink ejecting operation of the liquid ejecting head based on the signal from the controller and print data from the computer to execute a first route and a second route to be completely or substantially parallel to each other and to completely or substantially coincide with each other (overlapping) as viewed from the direction normal to the surface WF (Kumagai, ¶0080).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743