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 1-9 in the reply filed on 08 December 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 Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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. 2022-187582 was received on 04 January 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 November 2023 and 10 June 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 22 November 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, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US PGPub 2022/0324225 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a determination method for driving force of a print head that performs printing by discharging a droplet (¶0006), the determination method comprising:
setting a plurality types of driving force of the print head (¶0064; 0138);
forming, by driving the print head in sequence using the plurality types of driving force being set (¶0070-0074; 0060-0062), a first measurement pattern indicating a landing position of a droplet (test pattern 102; ¶0074; Fig. 6) and a second measurement pattern indicating landing area of a droplet (¶0078-0080; ¶0060-0062; Fig. 6; a measurement pattern is formed for each of the sheets); and
specifying one of the plurality types of driving force that satisfies a criterion (¶0092-0097, threshold is preliminarily set), based on the first measurement pattern and the second measurement pattern (¶0097, for each of the sheets the test patterns are read and waveform selected based on the threshold and optimization).
With regard to Claim 7, Kobayashi further discloses wherein the print head includes a plurality of discharge elements each configured to discharge a droplet (¶0032), and driving force satisfying the criterion for each of the discharge elements are specified in the specifying (¶0045, 0061-0066).
With regard to Claim 9, Kobayashi further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute each processing in the determination method according to claim 1 (¶0007; see claim 1 above).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, in view of Mizutani et al. (US PGPub 2017/0165962 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Kobayashi further discloses wherein, in the forming of the first measurement pattern and the second measurement pattern, the print head is driven, in sequence, by the plurality types of driving force being set (¶0070-0074; 0060-0062).
However, Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose the printhead is driven, while the print head is scanning with respect to a print medium.
The secondary reference of Mizutani discloses the printhead is driven, while the print head is scanning with respect to a print medium (Fig. 1).
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 scanning print head of Mizutani, with the method of Kobayashi, as a matter of design choice and to reduce the size of the apparatus.
With regard to Claim 3, Kobayashi further discloses wherein the first measurement pattern and the second measurement pattern are each formed such that the dots of droplets formed on the print medium do not overlap with each other (¶0078-0080; ¶0060-0062; Fig. 6; a measurement pattern is formed for each of the sheets; first and second measurement pattern formed on different sheets).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, in view of Ohnishi (US PGPub 2018/0201014 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of discharge elements is configured such that the discharge element can discharge a droplet when the discharge element is energized, and the driving force of the individual discharge element corresponds to an energization time for the discharge element.
The secondary reference of Ohnishi discloses wherein each of the plurality of discharge elements is configured such that the discharge element can discharge a droplet when the discharge element is energized (Abstract), and the driving force of the individual discharge element corresponds to an energization time for the discharge element (Abstract).
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 energization time of Ohnishi, with the method of Kobayashi, in order to adjust the ejection property of the nozzles with a practically scaled circuit configuration (¶0018), as taught by Ohnishi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 4 is that applicants claimed invention includes wherein the criterion includes that a displacement amount of the landing position is equal to or less than a tolerable upper limit value in the first measurement pattern, and that the landing area is equal to or larger than a tolerable lower limit value in the second measurement pattern. 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.
Claims 5 and 6 are allowable because they depend from Claim 4.
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