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 of CLAIMS 1-13 in the reply filed on 09 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2021-040473 was received on 20 October 2023 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 September 2023 and 17 March 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11 September 2023 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Arakawa et al. (US PGPub 2003/0132981 A1), hereinafter Arakawa.
With regard to Claim 1, Arakawa discloses a recording apparatus that records an image on a recording medium by applying an ink droplet (Abstract; Fig. 1) thereto, the recording apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a temperature in an installation environment of the recording apparatus (¶0195; temperature detection means 6);
a recording head provided with a plurality of recording elements to be driven by application of electrical energy (Fig. 2; head 4; ¶0002);
a scanning unit configured to cause the recording head to relatively scan a recording medium (¶0002; Figs. 1, 7, 15);
a setting unit configured to set a threshold value corresponding to the temperature acquired by the acquisition unit in response to a recording instruction (¶0199);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a value related to driving of the plurality of recording elements for applying ink droplets to a predetermined area in one relative scan based on the recording instruction (¶0198-0200; 0223-0225; Fig. 14);
a determination unit configured to determine a recording condition for recording an image based on the threshold value set by the setting unit and the value related to driving calculated by the calculation unit (¶0198-0200; 0223-0225; Fig. 14); and
a control unit configured to control the recording head and the scanning unit based on the recording condition determined by the determination unit (¶0198-0200; 0223-0225; Fig. 14).
With regard to Claim 2, Arakawa further discloses wherein, in a case where the temperature acquired by the acquisition unit is a first temperature, the setting unit sets a first threshold value (¶0199; selector switch for setting threshold value through limiters 311….31n based on ambient temperature detected; Fig. 14b), and in a case where the temperature acquired by the acquisition unit is a second temperature higher than the first temperature, the setting unit sets a second threshold value greater than the first threshold value (¶0199; selector switch for setting threshold value through limiters 311….31n based on ambient temperature detected; Fig. 14b).
With regard to Claim 3, Arakawa further discloses wherein, (i) in a case where the value related to driving is less than the threshold value set by the setting unit, the determination unit determines the recording condition as a first recording condition in which an amount of power that can be used per unit time to eject ink droplets from the plurality of recording elements is a first amount (¶0198-0200; 0223-0225; Fig. 14; ¶0159-0167), and (ii) in a case where the value related to driving is greater than the threshold value set by the setting unit, the determination unit determines the recording condition as a second recording condition in which an amount of power that can be used per unit time to eject ink droplets from the plurality of recording elements is a second amount less than the first amount (¶0198-0200; 0223-0225; Fig. 14; ¶0159-0167).
With regard to Claim 9, Arakawa further discloses wherein, in a case where the temperature acquired by the acquisition unit is a third temperature higher than the second temperature, the setting unit sets a third threshold value greater than the second threshold value (¶0199; selector switch for setting threshold value through limiters 311….31n based on ambient temperature detected; Fig. 14b).
With regard to Claim 11, Arakawa further discloses wherein the recording head includes a plurality of recording element arrays corresponding to a plurality of colors of ink (Fig. 1; ¶0012), and wherein a value related to driving calculated by the calculation unit is a total value in the plurality of colors of ink (¶0031).
With regard to Claim 12, Arakawa further discloses wherein the plurality of recording elements is arranged in a first direction (Fig. 1, x direction), and the scanning unit performs a relative scan in a second direction intersecting the first direction (scanning in the y direction; Fig. 2).
With regard to Claim 13, Arakawa further discloses a conveyance unit configured to convey a recording medium in the first direction (Fig. 1), wherein the scanning unit causes the recording head to scan in the second direction (Fig. 1).
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 of this title, 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa, in view of Hoshino (US PGPub 2006/0028523 A1).
With regard to Claim 4, Arakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein a speed of relative scan in the second recording condition is slower than a speed of relative scan in the first recording condition.
The secondary reference of Hoshino discloses wherein a speed of relative scan in the second recording condition is slower than a speed of relative scan in the first recording condition (¶0065-0068; Figs. 6-9, carriage speed and printing conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the speed or relative scan of recording conditions of Hoshino, with the apparatus of Arakawa, in order to determine the maximum recording rate per one color, as taught by Hoshino (¶0053).
With regard to Claim 5, Arakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of relative scans for applying ink droplets to the predetermined area in the second recording condition is greater than the number of relative scans for applying ink droplets to the predetermined area in the first recording condition.
The secondary reference of Hoshino discloses wherein the number of relative scans for applying ink droplets to the predetermined area in the second recording condition is greater than the number of relative scans for applying ink droplets to the predetermined area in the first recording condition (Figs. 7-9; one-way or two-way recording based on printing conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate relative scans of Hoshino, with the apparatus of Arakawa, in order to determine the maximum recording rate per one color, as taught by Hoshino (¶0053).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa, in view of Usui et al. (US PGPub 2003/0048317 A1), hereinafter Usui.
With regard to Claim 6, Arakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the value related to driving calculated by the calculation unit is any one of the number of driving times of driving the plurality of recording elements, a dot count value, and a value acquired from data indicating an application amount of ink of each color.
The secondary reference of Usui discloses wherein the value related to driving calculated by the calculation unit is any one of the number of driving times of driving the plurality of recording elements, a dot count value, and a value acquired from data indicating an application amount of ink of each color (¶0106-107; Figs. 5-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the value related to driving of Usui, with the recording apparatus of Arakawa, in order to stabilize ink ejection and to prevent a quality deterioration in a print image, as taught by Usui (¶0106).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa, in view of Umeda et al. (US PGPub 2017/0348979 A1), hereinafter Umeda.
With regard to Claim 7, Arakawa does not explicitly disclose a heater configured to heat the recording head.
The secondary reference of Umeda discloses a heater configured to heat the recording head (¶0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the heater of Umeda, with the apparatus of Arakawa, in order to heat a specific area of the printing element substrate, as taught by Umeda (¶0053).
With regard to Claim 8, Arakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein a power supply for supplying power to the plurality of recording elements and a power supply for supplying power to the heater have a common configuration.
The secondary reference of Umeda discloses wherein a power supply for supplying power to the plurality of recording elements and a power supply for supplying power to the heater have a common configuration (¶0055).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 10 is that applicants claimed invention includes a recording apparatus wherein the setting unit further sets a threshold value corresponding to a second area having a size smaller than that of the predetermined area corresponding to the temperature acquired by the acquisition unit, wherein the calculation unit further calculates a second value related to driving of the plurality of recording elements for applying ink droplets in the second area having the size smaller than that of the predetermined area, and wherein the determination unit determines the recording condition further based on the threshold value corresponding to the second area and the second value related to driving. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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 Rodriguez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853