DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/564144 filed on November 27, 2023 in which Claims 1-35 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 22-26, 34 and 35 have been cancelled. Claims 1,3-5,7-8,10-11,13,15,17-21 and 27-33 are pending, of which claims 1,3-5,7-8,10-11,13,15,17-21 and 29-33 are rejected under 103. Claims 27 and 28 are objected to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 28 are 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.
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 1, 3, 4, 8, 13, 15, 19, 20, 27-30 and 32 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 1 recites the limitation "the result" in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the retrieved first data" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the model parameter data" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the values" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the data storage" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the field" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the zone" in Lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the part" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the part" in Line 3 and 4, 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the production" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the ink" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the pressure value" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the pressure sensor" in Line 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the pressure data" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the pressure sensor" in Line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the ink pressure sensor" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the result" in Line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the result" in Line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the printer" in Lines 5, 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the part" in Line 10, 13 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the critical parameter values" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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, 4, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183).
Claim 1, Berg teaches a computer implemented method, executed by a processing unit of a computer, to process at least one operation critical parameter value and/or settings for a device over a time period (View Berg Col. 10, Lines 10-36; monitor during a predetermined window of time), and identify an operational status of the device (View Berg Col. 10, Lines 10-36; configuration item operating in a critical or dangerous condition), the method comprising: monitoring a first data during the operation of the device, the first data representing at least one current critical parameter value for the device from a first data source (View Berg Col. 10, Lines 10-36, Line 9; monitor) and a second data representing worst and best values representing boundaries for the functionality of the device (View Berg Col. 7, Lines 55-57; Col. 11, Line 61 – Col. 12, Line 9; threshold); analysing the first data and the second data, by comparing the first and second data (View Berg Col. 11, Line 61 – Col. 12; configuration item under comparison).
Berg does not explicitly teach generating an action for operation of the device or an arrangement associated with the device based on the result of the comparison.
However, Di Palma teaches generating an action for operation of the device or an arrangement associated with the device based on the result of the comparison (View Di Palma ¶ 3, 12, 49; corrective actions; comparison between one or more state parameters and corresponding threshold values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Berg with generating an action for operation of the device or an arrangement associated with the device based on the result of the comparison since it is known in the art that a corrective action can be generated (View Di Palma ¶ 3, 12, 49). Such modification would have allowed a printer issue to be resolved.
Claim 29 is the device corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 30 is the system corresponding to the method of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. Berg further teaches said processing comprises: generating a first and a second boundary values based on the second data, wherein the values in between the first and the second boundary values constitute a normal operational state for the device (View Berg Col. 11, Line 61 – Col. 12; value between threshold means). Di Palma further teaches monitoring the first data and generating the action (View Di Palma ¶ 3, 12, 39, 49; monitor state parameters; corrective actions).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) in view of McCarson (US Patent Application 2021/0264225) and further in view of Kalgren (US Patent Application 2008/0141072).
Claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach processing is an artificial intelligence or machine learning process comprising the steps of: cross-checking or vetting the retrieved first data to verify particulars of the device, training a model using the first data with respect to an operational lifetime of the device, predicting with the trained model, by input to the model parameter data, and generating the action based on the cross-checked or vetted first data and the prediction.
However, McCarson teaches processing is an artificial intelligence or machine learning process comprising the steps of: cross-checking or vetting the retrieved first data to verify particulars of the device (View McCarson ¶ 5; data vetting), predicting with the trained model, by input to the model parameter data (View McCarson ¶ 18, 39, 40; predictive analytics model) and generating the action based on the cross-checked or vetted first data and the prediction (View McCarson ¶ 5; correctly predict value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with processing is an artificial intelligence or machine learning process comprising the steps of: cross-checking or vetting the retrieved first data to verify particulars of the device, predicting with the trained model, by input to the model parameter data and generating the action based on the cross-checked or vetted first data and the prediction since it is known in the art that a prediction can be generated (View McCarson ¶ 5, 18, 39, 40). Such modification would have allowed printer error data to be predicted.
The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach training a model using the first data with respect to an operational lifetime of the device.
However, Kalgren teaches training a model using the first data with respect to an operational lifetime of the device (View Kalgren ¶ 81; train diagnostic model to represent operational lifetime).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with training a model using the first data with respect to an operational lifetime of the device since it is known in the art that operational lifetime data can train a model (View Kalgren ¶ 81). Such modification would have allowed printer operational lifetime data to train a model.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Boyapelle (US Patent Application 2017/0235622).
Claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the device comprises or several of: a printer, an industrial printer, a part associated with the printer/industrial printer, or a sensor.
However, Boyapelle teaches the device comprises or several of: a printer, an industrial printer, a part associated with the printer/industrial printer, or a sensor (View Boyapelle ¶ 101; system parameter sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the device comprises or several of: a printer, an industrial printer, a part associated with the printer/industrial printer, or a sensor since it is known in the art that a printer can include a sensor (View Boyapelle ¶ 101). Such modification would have allowed a printer device to include a sensor.
Claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach receiving further data representing parameter values from one or several additional sensors or data collecting devices.
However, Boyapelle teaches receiving further data representing parameter values from one or several additional sensors or data collecting devices (View Boyapelle ¶ 26; utilization data collected via numerous source information handling systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with receiving further data representing parameter values from one or several additional sensors or data collecting devices since it is known in the art that data can be received from a sensor (View Boyapelle ¶ 26). Such modification would have allowed a printer data to be received from a sensor.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Allen (US Patent Application 2007/0106713).
Claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach forwarding to the data storage, continuously running data representing critical parameter values and/or in an initial phase.
However, Allen teaches forwarding to the data storage, continuously running data representing critical parameter values and/or in an initial phase (View Allen ¶ 24; continuous monitor and store critical data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with forwarding to the data storage, continuously running data representing critical parameter values and/or in an initial phase since it is known in the art that critical data can be stored (View Allen ¶ 24). Such modification would have allowed critical data to be stored.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Gauf (US Patent 8,826,084).
Claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 4.
The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach building a plurality of numerical zones representing first data out of bounds and within bounds, wherein the first and the second boundary values are generated during one or several of device validations, through field experience, or test-runs.
However, Gauf teaches building a plurality of numerical zones representing first data out of bounds and within bounds, wherein the first and the second boundary values are generated during one or several of device validations, through field experience, or test-runs (View Gauf Col. 3, Lines 9-22; boundary testing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with building a plurality of numerical zones representing first data out of bounds and within bounds, wherein the first and the second boundary values are generated during one or several of device validations, through field experience, or test-runs since it is known in the art that boundaries can be tested (View Gauf Col. 3, Lines 9-22). Such modification would have allowed printer data error boundaries to be tested.
Claim 11, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 10. Berg further teaches out of bounds zones comprise values for nonacceptable and critical parameter values (View Berg Col. 10, Lines 10-36; configuration item operating in a critical or dangerous condition).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) in view of Gauf (US Patent 8,826,084) and further in view of Shapiro (US Patent Application 2019/0003929).
Claim 13, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 10. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the first and the second boundary values are at least one of: weighted by operating conditions, comprising one or several of temperature, humidity, pressure, number of starts of device, or a parameter contributing to aging of the device, or collected and/or corrected and/or refined via feedback from the device, a user, usage profiles and/or failure occurrences in the field.
However, Shapiro teaches the first and the second boundary values are at least one of: weighted by operating conditions, comprising one or several of temperature, humidity, pressure, number of starts of device, or a parameter contributing to aging of the device, or collected and/or corrected and/or refined via feedback from the device, a user, usage profiles and/or failure occurrences in the field (View Shapiro ¶ 22; health score).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the first and the second boundary values are at least one of: weighted by operating conditions, comprising one or several of temperature, humidity, pressure, number of starts of device, or a parameter contributing to aging of the device, or collected and/or corrected and/or refined via feedback from the device, a user, usage profiles and/or failure occurrences in the field since it is known in the art that boundaries can be environmental (View Shapiro ¶ 22). Such modification would have allowed printer data error boundaries to be environmental.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) in view of Park (US Patent Application 2005/0044432) and further in view of Seo (US Patent Application 2002/0064112).
Claim 15, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 4. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach if the action is based: on a value in the zone for acceptable values, a remaining operating time is estimated, displayed and transmitted; wherein if the action is based on a value in the zone for nonacceptable values, an alarm and/or default is set, displayed, and/or transmitted.
However, Park teaches if the action is based: on a value in the zone for acceptable values, a remaining operating time is estimated, displayed and transmitted (View Park ¶ 33; allowable operating time displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with if the action is based: on a value in the zone for acceptable values, a remaining operating time is estimated, displayed and transmitted since it is known in the art that operating times can be displayed (View Park ¶ 33). Such modification would have allowed an operating time to be displayed to a user.
The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach if the action is based on a value in the zone for nonacceptable values, an alarm and/or default is set, displayed, and/or transmitted.
However, Seo teaches if the action is based on a value in the zone for nonacceptable values, an alarm and/or default is set, displayed, and/or transmitted (View Seo ¶ 34; display warning message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with if the action is based on a value in the zone for nonacceptable values, an alarm and/or default is set, displayed, and/or transmitted since it is known in the art that a warning can be displayed (View Seo ¶ 34). Such modification would have allowed a warning to be displayed to a user.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Chen (US Patent Application 2020/0151056).
Claim 17, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach an operating time, Tmax_real, for identification of the operational status of the device is determined by:Tmax_real=Tmax_worst +Af (Tmax_best – Tmax_worse) wherein: Af is an ageing factor, Tmax_worst is an operating time value in the first boundary values, and Tmax_best is an operating time value in the first boundary values.
However, Chen teaches an operating time, Tmax_real, for identification of the operational status of the device is determined by:Tmax_real=Tmax_worst +Af (Tmax_best – Tmax_worse) wherein: Af is an ageing factor, Tmax_worst is an operating time value in the first boundary values, and Tmax_best is an operating time value in the first boundary values (View Chen ¶ 30; adaptive time window threshold; system operation of age of device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with an operating time, Tmax_real, for identification of the operational status of the device is determined by:Tmax_real=Tmax_worst +Af (Tmax_best – Tmax_worse) wherein: Af is an ageing factor, Tmax_worst is an operating time value in the first boundary values, and Tmax_best is an operating time value in the first boundary values since it is known in the art that an ageing factor can be determined (View Chen ¶ 30). Such modification would have allowed a device age to be determined.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Park (US Patent Application 2020/0134075).
Claim 18, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach measuring by the device the first data, calculating a time derivative, ΔP', for the first data, generating the action if the ΔP' exceeds a threshold value before a maximum critical parameter value is reached.
However, Park teaches measuring by the device the first data, calculating a time derivative, ΔP', for the first data, generating the action if the ΔP' exceeds a threshold value before a maximum critical parameter value is reached (View Park ¶ 68; derivative of data point; remedial action).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with measuring by the device the first data, calculating a time derivative, ΔP', for the first data, generating the action if the ΔP' exceeds a threshold value before a maximum critical parameter value is reached since it is known in the art that a data point difference can be determined (View Park ¶ 68). Such modification would have allowed a remedial action to be implemented after exceeding a threshold.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Shapiro (US Patent Application 2019/0003929).
Claim 19, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the second data depend on environment or operating conditions of the device and/or the part associated with the device.
However, Shapiro teaches the second data depend on environment or operating conditions of the device and/or the part associated with the device (View Shapiro ¶ 22; environmental conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the second data depend on environment or operating conditions of the device and/or the part associated with the device since it is known in the art that boundaries can be environmental (View Shapiro ¶ 22). Such modification would have allowed printer data error boundaries to be environmental.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Tamaki (US Patent Application 2011/0276828).
Claim 20, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the action is at least one of: a signal for reconfiguring the device and/or the part associated with the device, a prediction about operating time of the device and/or the part associated with the device, or an advice at least comprising a notification to a user and/or helpdesk for the device and/or the part associated with the device, and the action further comprises one or several of replacing a part, stopping the device's operation in a specific time, prediction of remaining lifetime and measures thereof, or take manual or automatic measures to avoid stops or delays in the production.
However, Tamaki teaches the action is at least one of: a signal for reconfiguring the device and/or the part associated with the device, a prediction about operating time of the device and/or the part associated with the device, or an advice at least comprising a notification to a user and/or helpdesk for the device and/or the part associated with the device (View Tamaki ¶ 263; lifetime prediction), and the action further comprises one or several of replacing a part, stopping the device's operation in a specific time, prediction of remaining lifetime and measures thereof, or take manual or automatic measures to avoid stops or delays in the production (View Tamaki ¶ 263; replace part).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the action is at least one of: a signal for reconfiguring the device and/or the part associated with the device, a prediction about operating time of the device and/or the part associated with the device, or an advice at least comprising a notification to a user and/or helpdesk for the device and/or the part associated with the device, and the action further comprises one or several of replacing a part, stopping the device's operation in a specific time, prediction of remaining lifetime and measures thereof, or take manual or automatic measures to avoid stops or delays in the production since it is known in the art that a printer part can be replaced (View Tamaki ¶ 263). Such modification would have allowed a failed printer part to be replaced.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) in view of Boyapelle (US Patent Application 2017/0235622) and further in view of Fujishita (US Patent Application 2008/0301496).
Claim 21, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach obtaining a printer identity; obtaining printer running data and/or an operational parameter; setting a control run parameter; defining a run-time for running a control based on the control run parameter, running a control operation based on the defined run-time, processing printer running data and/or the operational parameter, comparing result of the processing with previous or determined outcomes of printer operation, and based on a result of the comparison generating the action.
However, Fujishita teaches obtaining a printer identity; obtaining printer running data and/or an operational parameter; setting a control run parameter; defining a run-time for running a control based on the control run parameter, running a control operation based on the defined run-time, processing printer running data and/or the operational parameter, comparing result of the processing with previous or determined outcomes of printer operation, and based on a result of the comparison generating the action (View Fujishita ¶ 41, 55; printer identifier; related data required for resolving a fatal error).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with obtaining a printer identity; obtaining printer running data and/or an operational parameter; setting a control run parameter; defining a run-time for running a control based on the control run parameter, running a control operation based on the defined run-time, processing printer running data and/or the operational parameter, comparing result of the processing with previous or determined outcomes of printer operation, and based on a result of the comparison generating the action since it is known in the art that printer data can be obtained (View Fujishita ¶ 41, 55). Such modification would have allowed printer data to be used to resolve an error.
Claim(s) 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Purcell (US Patent Application 2001/0007458).
Claim 31, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 30. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the computer is arranged at least in: communication with the at least one printer; the at least one printer; an edge computing node; or a cloud computing node.
However, Purcell teaches the computer is arranged at least in: communication with the at least one printer; the at least one printer; an edge computing node; or a cloud computing node (View Purcell ¶ 8; printer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the computer is arranged at least in: communication with the at least one printer; the at least one printer; an edge computing node; or a cloud computing node since it is known in the art that a computer can be connected to a printer (View Purcell ¶ 8). Such modification would have allowed a computer to communicate with a printer.
Claim 32, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 30. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the critical parameter values are obtained from one or several of optical/magnetic encoder or sensors for: temperature, pressure, level, humidity, air bubble detection, position, distance, laser thru-beam, vision, consumable, ink jet position, slightly deviated ink jet, ink jet presence, ink jet speed, recovery/gutter overflow, head dirtiness, phase, covers/parts presence, accelerometer, vibrations, printhead position, or break-off point.
However, Purcell teaches the critical parameter values are obtained from one or several of optical/magnetic encoder or sensors for: temperature, pressure, level, humidity, air bubble detection, position, distance, laser thru-beam, vision, consumable, ink jet position, slightly deviated ink jet, ink jet presence, ink jet speed, recovery/gutter overflow, head dirtiness, phase, covers/parts presence, accelerometer, vibrations, printhead position, or break-off point (View Purcell ¶ 8; sensed environmental conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the critical parameter values are obtained from one or several of optical/magnetic encoder or sensors for: temperature, pressure, level, humidity, air bubble detection, position, distance, laser thru-beam, vision, consumable, ink jet position, slightly deviated ink jet, ink jet presence, ink jet speed, recovery/gutter overflow, head dirtiness, phase, covers/parts presence, accelerometer, vibrations, printhead position, or break-off point since it is known in the art that environmental data can be sensed (View Purcell ¶ 8). Such modification would have allowed environmental data to be sensed for a printer.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US Patent 11,477,077) in view of Di Palma (US Patent Application 2009/0094183) and further in view of Andreoli (US Patent Application 2011/0055122).
Claim 33, most of the limitations of this claim has been noted in the rejection of Claim 30. The combination of teachings above does not explicitly teach the first data source comprises a data providing unit comprising one or several external ambient sensors, including: humidity, temperature, air quality, proximity, altitude, pressure, VOC (Volatile organic compounds), or CO/02/CO2.
However, Andreoli teaches the first data source comprises a data providing unit comprising one or several external ambient sensors, including: humidity, temperature, air quality, proximity, altitude, pressure, VOC (Volatile organic compounds), or CO/02/CO2 (View Andreoli ¶ 14; sensor readings, temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the combination of teachings with the first data source comprises a data providing unit comprising one or several external ambient sensors, including: humidity, temperature, air quality, proximity, altitude, pressure, VOC (Volatile organic compounds), or CO/02/CO2 since it is known in the art that environmental data can be read (View Andreoli ¶ 14). Such modification would have allowed environmental data to be read for a printer.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Machida et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2012/0030335); teaches aging characteristics are expressed by a function of the operating time and the aging attribute value, and the limit value of the aging attribute value. The aging attribute value is the memory usage, the disk usage, the response time and the like in the system metrics which gradually increases or decreases as the operating time becomes longer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114