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 .
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 puts forth consideration of the detected deviations jointly. The limitation is unclear as claim 1 puts forth a configuration wherein a single deviation is detected from the printhead path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 8-13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathis Figs. 13-19 (US 2018/0201029).
Regarding claim 1, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses a method of printing an image onto a surface using a printhead carried by a robot arm, the method comprising:
obtaining an image (400) which exceeds a predetermined print width of the printhead (Paragraph 77, the image is larger than the print head, and therefore split into slices);
splitting the image into at least two image strips (slices) (Paragraph 77 and Figure 13), each contained within a reduced print width which is less than the predetermined print width (Figures 13 and 15, the reduced print width is less than the predetermined print width, as the predetermined print width includes the unused nozzles that are on the widthwise ends (Paragraph 76); The reduced print width only includes the interior used nozzles that print the slice; The unused nozzles are only used when compensating to the wider (predetermined) print width), and generating associated printhead paths (Paragraph 68, the arm is moved over a rastering path 350);
detecting one or more deviations from the printhead paths when the robot arm is fed with a first control signal (Paragraph 74, the sensor transmits a path-following error signal to a controller); and modifying the image strips to compensate the one or more detected deviations by applying a local lateral shift (Paragraph 76, The controller shifts the nozzles on the printhead that are actively dispensing, to offset the image slice).
Regarding claim 2, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: printing the modified image strips onto the surface while the robot arm is fed with a control signal that is equivalent to the first control signal (Paragraph 76, the controller sends the control signal in real time to activate the desired nozzles).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the one or more deviations are detected during a printing run (Paragraph 74, the detection occurs as the printhead is moved along the rastering path).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the one or more deviations are detected using a position sensor having a tolerance which is less than the robot arm's tolerance (Paragraphs 77-78, the printhead is configured to have increased precision relative to that of the robot, in order to compensate for slow response time of the robot).
Regarding claim 8, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more deviations are detected using an optical or laser-equipped position sensor or a camera system (Paragraph 75, optical position sensor).
Regarding claim 9, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the printhead has a plurality of individually controllable pixels defining a pitch that is less than the robot arm's tolerance (Figure 15, the drawing depicts a plurality of pixels; Paragraph 76, individual nozzles are activated and deactivated at varying times; Paragraphs 77-78, the printhead is configured to have a tolerance less than that of the robot arm, as such the pitches of the pixels are less than that of the robot arm).
Regarding claim 10, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said modifying includes: modifying at least the image strip corresponding to a printhead path for which a deviation was detected; and modifying at least one adjacent image strip (Paragraphs 49 and 68, the modification of the image path takes place in real-time and the side edge of the new image slice is maintained in alignment with the side edge of the existing image slice).
Regarding claim 11, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said modifying includes considering the detected deviations jointly (Paragraph 68, As best understood, the deviation of an existing image strip is considered, along with prevention of deviation of a new strip).
Regarding claim 12, Mathis Fig. 13-19 the method of claim 1, wherein said modifying includes applying a lateral shift equal to at most the difference of the print width and the reduced print width (Paragraph 76, the position of the print head may be maintained during movement of the rastering path, which would provide for only a shift at most from the reduced print width to the print width, which includes the end unused nozzles).
Regarding claim 13, Mathis Figs. 13-19 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the printhead includes an inkjet head and/or a spray gun (Paragraph 47, inkjet head).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathis Figs. 23-31 (US 2018/0201029).
Regarding claim 1, Mathis Fig. 23-31 discloses a method of printing an image onto a surface using a printhead carried by a robot arm, the method comprising:
obtaining an image (400) which exceeds a predetermined print width of the printhead (300) (Figure 23 shows that the image is larger than the printhead 300);
splitting the image into at least two image strips (slices) (Paragraph 100 and Figure 23, the image is split into image slices 404), each contained within a reduced print width which is less than the predetermined print width (Figure 23), and generating associated printhead paths (Paragraph 100, the arm is moved over a rastering path 350); detecting one or more deviations from the printhead paths when the robot arm is fed with a first control signal (Paragraph 98, the sensor transmits a path-following error signal to a controller); and modifying the image strips to compensate the one or more detected deviations by applying a local lateral shift (Paragraph 108, The controller shifts the nozzles on the printhead that are actively dispensing, to offset the image slice).
Regarding claim 2, Mathis Fig. 23-31 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: printing the modified image strips onto the surface while the robot arm is fed with a control signal that is equivalent to the first control signal (Paragraph 110, the controller sends the control signal in real time to activate the desired nozzles).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Mathis Figs. 23-31 discloses the method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the one or more deviations are detected during a dry run (Paragraph 97, the reference line 322 may be etched into a previously applied basecoat, and detection of the deviation may occur at this point; This is interpreted as a dry run, as it occurs prior to the dispensing of the nozzles).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Mathis or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mathis.
Regarding claim 14, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses a controller adapted to control a printhead carried by a robot arm to print an image onto a surface, the controller comprising:
a first interface configured to accept image data and a position sensor signal (Paragraphs 68 and 73, the structure is implied, as the controller receives image detection and error feedback from the sensor);
a second interface configured to output a printhead control signal (Paragraph 74, based on the signal, the controller may cause the position of the printhead to be adjusted); and
processing circuitry (the structure is implied as the controller performs the claimed steps) configured to execute a method including the steps of:
obtaining an image (400) which exceeds a predetermined print width of the printhead (Paragraph 77, the image is larger than the print head, and therefore split into slices);
splitting the image into at least two image strips (slices) (Paragraph 77 and Figure 13), each contained within a reduced print width which is less than the predetermined print width (Figures 13 and 15, the reduced print width is less than the predetermined print width, as the predetermined print width includes the unused nozzles that are on the widthwise ends (Paragraph 76); The reduced print width only includes the interior used nozzles that print the slice; The unused nozzles are only used when compensating to the wider (predetermined) print width), and generating associated printhead paths (Paragraph 68, the arm is moved over a rastering path 350);
detecting a deviation from the printhead paths when the robot arm is fed with a first control signal (Paragraph 74, the sensor transmits a path-following error signal to a controller); and modifying the image strips to compensate the detected deviation by applying a local lateral shift (Paragraph 76, The controller shifts the nozzles on the printhead that are actively dispensing, to offset the image slice).
Should it be found that the controller does not feature more than one interface, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device to include a plurality of interfaces, as Applicant has not disclosed that the structure solves a stated problem, or is for a stated purpose, and it appears the device would perform equally well whether the device includes one or more than one interface.
Regarding claim 15, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses a computer program comprising instructions to cause a controller to execute a method, the controller being adapted to control a printhead carried by a robot arm to print an image onto a surface, the controller having:
a first interface configured to accept image data and a position sensor signal (Paragraphs 68 and 73, the structure is implied, as the controller receives image detection and error feedback from the sensor);
a second interface configured to output a printhead control signal (Paragraph 74, based on the signal, the controller may cause the position of the printhead to be adjusted);
processing circuitry (the structure is implied as the controller performs the claimed steps) configured to execute the method, which includes the step of:
obtaining an image (400) which exceeds a predetermined print width of the printhead (Paragraph 77, the image is larger than the print head, and therefore split into slices);
splitting the image into at least two image strips (slices) (Paragraph 77 and Figure 13), each contained within a reduced print width which is less than the predetermined print width (Figures 13 and 15, the reduced print width is less than the predetermined print width, as the predetermined print width includes the unused nozzles that are on the widthwise ends (Paragraph 76); The reduced print width only includes the interior used nozzles that print the slice; The unused nozzles are only used when compensating to the wider (predetermined) print width), and generating associated printhead paths (Paragraph 68, the arm is moved over a rastering path 350);
detecting a deviation from the printhead paths when the robot arm is fed with a first control signal (Paragraph 74, the sensor transmits a path-following error signal to a controller); and modifying the image strips to compensate the detected deviation by applying a local lateral shift (Paragraph 76, The controller shifts the nozzles on the printhead that are actively dispensing, to offset the image slice).
Should it be found that the controller does not feature more than one interface, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device to include a plurality of interfaces, as Applicant has not disclosed that the structure solves a stated problem, or is for a stated purpose, and it appears the device would perform equally well whether the device includes one or more than one interface.
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, 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) 5, 7, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathis.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the one or more deviations are detected using a position sensor (326), but is silent as to whether the sensor is detachable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sensor detachable since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177,179.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Mathis Fig. 13-19 discloses the method of claims 1 and 2, wherein the one or more deviations are detected using a position sensor (326), but fails to disclose that the tolerance is 0.1 mm or less.
Mathis puts forth that the position sensor is configured to compensate for the large tolerance of the arm with lesser tolerances (Paragraphs 77-78), but is silent as to the exact value. Tolerance is put forth as a result-effective, as optimizing the tolerances provides for a more precise band of movement. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Mathis device to have a tolerance within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the value of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mathis by making the tolerance 0.1 mm or less as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that the Mathis device does not consider a previously generated printhead path, the claim limitations do not require such structure. As proposed by Applicant, a predetermined path is determined relative to a reference line. Mathis determines deviations relative to the reference line. The structure is in alignment with the claim language. Examiner recommends amending limitations to provide for consideration of an absolute error.
As to Applicants arguments regarding modification of the image strips, Applicant puts forth the method step “by applying a local lateral shift.” The limitation is broad. Examiner highlights the lateral shift of the nozzles, put forth by the prior. Applicant recommends amending the limitation to define the local lateral shift.
As to Applicant’s positions regarding claim 10, the interpretation is in line with the broad language put forth by the claims. The image strips are modified by a shifting of the nozzle.
As to Applicant’s positions regarding claim 11, Applicant puts forth detection of a single deviation, as well as detection of more than one deviation. In an instance where there is only one deviation, there is no joint consideration of deviations.
As to Applicant’s positions regarding detachability, Applicant states that use with multiple arms is permissible, not critical. While cost-savings may be a benefit that flows from detachability, Applicant does not frame detachability as a critical element.
As to Applicant’s arguments regarding tolerance, by admission of Applicant, general conditions of the claim have been disclosed, as required by Aller. Aller does not require disclosure of specific values.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights