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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 09/16/25 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn without prejudice. Claims 9-15 have been rejoined and examined below along with claims 1-8. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 lacks a period. Appropriate correction is required. 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 ( 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 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. Claim s 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubio Castillo et al. WO 2021/025675 A1 (“Rubio Castillo”) . Rubio Castillo discloses: 1. A method comprising: providing object data for printing an object with a printhead (Fig. 1 #100: “3D PPRINT JOB”, Fig. 2 #210: “Receive 3D Print Job”, [0006]: “the print job may be sent to the apparatus 1 as a 3D object model and the processor may determine a corresponding set of print job instructions”) ; predicting a nozzle failure of a nozzle in the printhead which corresponds with a print location of the object ([0016]: “the health status from the nozzle test can be mapped onto specific regions of the printed 3D part” , [0021] : “the nozzle hea l th status could be designated on a scale for example a numeric or percentage being assigned indicative of how healthy or close to failure a nozzle is determined to be” ) ; and determining a print quality parameter of the object to be printed without using the nozzle ([0016]: “the health status from the nozzle test…can be represented in a 3D model of the part” , [0022] , claim 6: “predict the impact of current nozzle health on subsequent layers to be printed on a layer-by-layer basis” ) . 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing a corrective action (Fig. 2 #245: “Adjust Nozzle Parameter”, [0017], [0023]-[0028]: “take corrective or preventative action in block 245”, “using neighboring nozzles”, [0031]) in response to determining that the print quality parameter is below a quality threshold ([0017]: “corrective or preventative action to maintain print quality above a certain threshold”, [0022]: “heath status for the 3D print job is below a predetermined threshold which is considered present a risk to the print quality”) . 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the corrective action is at least one of the following: change the print location of the object; maintenance procedure; user notification; and use of a redundant nozzle (Fig. 2 #245: “Adjust Nozzle Parameter”, [0017], [0023]-[0028]: “take corrective or preventative action in block 245”, “using neighboring nozzles”, [0031]) . 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the quality threshold is set by a user ([0017]: “predetermined threshold”) . 5. The method of to claim 1, wherein predicting a nozzle failure comprises using drop detection for said nozzle ( Fig. 2 #225: “Perform Nozzle Test”, [0020]: “The nozzle test may be a nozzle drop detection test”) . 6. The method of claim 5, wherein predicting a nozzle failure comprises using current and historical results from the drop detection for said nozzle ( Fig. 2 #230, [0009]: “ nozzle health data 142 may for example include one or more of: historical nozzle data, calculated or simulated nozzle data”) . 7. The method of claim 1, wherein predicting a nozzle failure is dependent on the location of the nozzle within the printhead ([0015]: “nozzle health status may, therefore, be indexed by both nozzle and layer of the build”, [0030]) . 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising predicting a nozzle failure in a second nozzle in a second printhead and using said prediction to determine the print quality parameter (Fig. 1 #115: “Printhead(s)”, [0023]: “nozzle heath status of a neighboring, for example an adjacent, nozzle”) . 9. A printing apparatus comprising: a printhead (Fig. 1 #15, [0006]) ; a processor (Fig. 1 #120, [0006]) ; a storage medium storing instructions (Fig. 1 #130, [0006] , [0008] ) , that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: use object data to determine printing area coordinates for printing an object using the printhead (Fig. 1 #100: “3D PPRINT JOB”, Fig. 2 #210: “Receive 3D Print Job”, [0006]: “the print job may be sent to the apparatus 1 as a 3D object model and the processor may determine a corresponding set of print job instructions”) ; determine a nozzle failure likelihood for a nozzle in the printhead corresponding to the printing area coordinates of the object ([0016]: “the health status from the nozzle test can be mapped onto specific regions of the printed 3D part”, [0021]: “the nozzle heath status could be designated on a scale for example a numeric or percentage being assigned indicative of how healthy or close to failure a nozzle is determined to be”) ; and determine an object quality parameter of the object based on failure of the nozzle ([0016]: “the health status from the nozzle test…can be represented in a 3D model of the part”, [0022], claim 6: “predict the impact of current nozzle health on subsequent layers to be printed on a layer-by-layer basis”) . 10. The printing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is to perform a corrective action (Fig. 2 #245: “Adjust Nozzle Parameter”, [0017], [0023]-[0028]: “take corrective or preventative action in block 245”, “using neighboring nozzles”, [0031]) in response to determining that the object quality parameter is below a quality threshold ([0017]: “corrective or preventative action to maintain print quality above a certain threshold” , [0022]: “heath status for the 3D print job is below a predetermined threshold which is considered present a risk to the print quality” ) and the nozzle failure likelihood is above a failure threshold ([0017]: “triggering a corrective action when the health status is non-compliant with a predetermined threshold”, [0020] : “required threshold”, [0021]: “percentage being assigned indicative of how healthy or close to failure a nozzle is determined to be” ) . 11. The printing apparatus of claim 10, wherein the corrective action is at least one of the following: change the print location of the object; maintenance procedure; user notification; and use another nozzle (Fig. 2 #245: “Adjust Nozzle Parameter”, [0017], [0023]-[0028]: “take corrective or preventative action in block 245”, “using neighboring nozzles”, [0031]) . 12. The printing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the processor is to use drop detection data for the nozzle to determine the nozzle failure likelihood, the drop detection data comprising a plurality of drop detection results for the nozzle (Fig. 2 #225: “Perform Nozzle Test”, [0020]: “The nozzle test may be a nozzle drop detection test”) . 13. The printing apparatus of claim 9, further comprising a second printhead, the processor to determine a nozzle failure likelihood of a second nozzle in the second printhead (Fig. 1 #115: “Printhead(s)”, [0023]: “nozzle heath status of a neighboring, for example an adjacent, nozzle”) corresponding to the printing area coordinates of the first nozzle ([0016]: “the health status from the nozzle test can be mapped onto specific regions of the printed 3D part” ) . 14. The printing apparatus of claim 13, wherein the processor is to perform a corrective action (Fig. 2 #245: “Adjust Nozzle Parameter”, [0017], [0023]-[0028]: “take corrective or preventative action in block 245”, “using neighboring nozzles”, [0031]) in response to determining that the object quality parameter is below a quality threshold ([0017]: “corrective or preventative action to maintain print quality above a certain threshold”, [0022]: “heath status for the 3D print job is below a predetermined threshold which is considered present a risk to the print quality”) and the nozzle failure likelihood of the first and second nozzle is above a failure threshold ([0017]: “triggering a corrective action when the health status is non-compliant with a predetermined threshold”, [0020]: “required threshold”, [0021]: “percentage being assigned indicative of how healthy or close to failure a nozzle is determined to be”) . 15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a set of computer-readable instructions (Fig. 1 #130, [0006], [0008]) that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive object data for printing an object (Fig. 1 #100: “3D PPRINT JOB”, Fig. 2 #210: “Receive 3D Print Job”, [0006]: “the print job may be sent to the apparatus 1 as a 3D object model and the processor may determine a corresponding set of print job instructions”) ; predict a nozzle failure of a nozzle in the printhead which corresponds with a print location of the object ([0016]: “the health status from the nozzle test can be mapped onto specific regions of the printed 3D part”, [0021]: “the nozzle heath status could be designated on a scale for example a numeric or percentage being assigned indicative of how healthy or close to failure a nozzle is determined to be”) ; and determine a print quality parameter of the object to be printed without using the nozzle ([0016]: “the health status from the nozzle test…can be represented in a 3D model of the part”, [0022], claim 6: “predict the impact of current nozzle health on subsequent layers to be printed on a layer-by-layer basis”) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dafinoiu et al. US 2023/0321995 discloses a printhead monitoring method comprising, based on a vulnerable nozzle map indicating one or more operational nozzles of a printhead identified as meeting a failure likelihood criterion, during a print job, and between successive print passes of the printhead, checking operation of the one or more operational nozzles indicated on the vulnerable nozzle map. Vinets Alonso et al. US 2022/0288921 discloses a print apparatus includes a printhead carriage to receive a printhead comprising a print agent ejection nozzle, a drop detector to acquire a signal indicative of variations in a parameter detected by the drop detector over a period of drop detection; a memory to store nozzle location information of the nozzles; and processing circuitry comprising a correlation module to correlate the drop detector signal with the nozzle location information wherein the processing circuitry comprises an abnormality detection module to determine, based on an output of the correlation module, a cross-nozzle abnormality that affects a subset of nozzles. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RYAN A JARRETT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3742 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kamini Shah can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2279 . 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. /RYAN A JARRETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 12/ 1 8 /25