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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, the term "pint" should be "print".
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings fail to show “nozzle plate” (as recited in claim 10) in a broadest sense. Does “closure plate 111” as shown in fig.6 correspond to “nozzle plate” (as recited in claim 10)? The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “nozzle plate” (as recited in claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Due to drawing objection, the instant specification is also objected because the instant specification does not consistently reflect what being claimed i.e. “nozzle plate” (as recited in claim 10) in the instant specification.
Note that the instant specification must consistently reflect claimed limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 7, claim 7 recites limitations "the type”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the type" appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka – US 20120287186.
As to claim 1, Tanaka teaches a method for analyzing a print head 24 ([0044, 0049]: analyzing/detecting temperature of the print head 24), comprising the steps of:
driving a piezo element 48 within the print head 24 with a sequence of voltage profiles (fig.4C and [0065] shows a sequence of voltage profiles P2 driving piezo elements 48; thus “driving a piezo element within the print head with a sequence of voltage profiles”); and
detecting a sound level, a current flow, a resistance, an impedance, and/or a temperature of the print head during the driving ([0044, 0049]: discharge conditions can be varied according to the environment of the print head 24, such as the temperature of the print head 24; thus “detecting a sound level, a current flow, a resistance, an impedance, and/or a temperature of the print head during the driving”).
As to claim 3, Tanaka teaches the piezo element 48 is excited over a predetermined period of time ([0064-0065] and figs.4B-4C shows piezo element 48 is excited over a predetermined period of time i.e. t0-t5).
As to claim 4, Tanaka teaches the sequence of the voltage profiles comprises a predetermined sequence of the voltage profiles different from one another ([0064-0065] and figs.4B-4C: a sequence of the voltage profiles different from one another over a predetermined period of time i.e. t0-t5).
As to claim 5, Tanaka teaches a hold time (peak portion t1 to t2), rise time (rising pulse portion t0 to t1) and/or fall time (falling pulse portion t2 to t3) of the voltage profiles P2 increases or decreases in sequence ([0064-0065] and figs.4B-4C).
As to claim 6, Tanaka teach a course of the current flow or the temperature of the print head 24 is detected during the driving ([0049]).
As to claim 13, Tanaka teaches the print head 24 comprises a printing nozzle 23, and wherein the printing nozzle 23 is open or closed during the method ([0044]: rate of fluid/ink discharged is monitored based on detected temperature of print head 24; thus “the printing nozzle is open or closed during the method”).
As to claim 14, Tanaka teaches the print head 24 is covered by a closure plate 40 ([0053]: capping device 40 raises the cap 41 to seal the nozzle plate 27, with the print head 24 having been moved to the home position facing the capping device 40 during a pause in printing; hence, capping device 40 corresponds to “a closure plate”).
As to claim 15, Tanaka teaches a printing device 20, which is configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 ([0021-0028]: monitoring temperature of discharge head or print head of print device 20 because discharge condition can be a condition which changes according to an environment of the discharge head i.e. temperature; [0026]: the discharge condition that a nozzle in an unstable state be put into a dot omission state changes according to the environment of the discharge head or print head; thus “a printing device, which is configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1”).
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 (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 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 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tanaka and further in view of Yokozawa – US 20080297552.
As to claim 7, Tanaka does not explicitly teach the detected course i.e. temperature is compared with a pre-stored course.
Yokozawa teaches temperature of the print head is detected during printing and compares the detected temperature with a predetermined threshold to control printing operations ([0008]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka with teachings of Yokozawa to include the detected course i.e. temperature is compared with a pre-stored course, to control printing operation ([0008]).
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tanaka and Yokozawa and further in view of Yamada – US 6359701 B1.
As to claim 8, modified Tanaka does not explicitly teach the type of a printing liquid inside the print head is determined or characterized based on the comparison.
Yamada teaches a concept of: print head temperature depends on ink type (col.49, lines 25-27).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Tanaka with teachings of Yamada to include the type of a printing liquid inside the print head is determined or characterized based on the comparison, to identify ink type (col.49, lines 25-27).
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tanaka and further in view of DeVore – US 20100165034.
As to claim 2, while Tanaka teaches the pint head 24 comprises a printing nozzle 23, Tanaka does not explicitly teach a malfunction of the printing nozzle is detected when the detected sound level, the current flow, or the temperature is above a predetermined value.
DeVore teaches a concept of: sound is employed to determine if the printhead has a defective nozzle; if nozzle fails to have an acoustical level above the threshold, and thus is considered as being defective ([0024-0025 and 0029]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka with teachings of DeVore to include a malfunction of the printing nozzle is detected when the detected sound level, the current flow, or the temperature is compared to any desired value i.e. above a predetermined value, to determine if the printhead has a defective nozzle ([0024]).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Tanaka and further in view of Takada – Translate_JP2018051822A.
As to claim 12, Tanaka does not explicitly teach the method is performed when printing liquid in the print head is changed.
Takada teaches a concept of: inkjet printing apparatus uses pattern image data and the calculation program data for analyzing the pattern image, for example, when ink is changed to another ink different from the ink mounted on the apparatus (see page 8 and abstract).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka with teachings of Takada to include the method is performed when printing liquid in the print head is changed, because low or expired ink causes poor quality, clogs, and prevents proper diagnostic testing. Fresh ink ensures the print head does not dry out, prevents air bubbles from forming during cleaning, and allows for accurate nozzle checks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable once claim objection, drawing objection, and specification objection are corrected and 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:
As to claim 9, claim 9 includes the sequence of the voltage profiles comprises a predetermined sequence of the voltage profiles equal to one another, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 1 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 10, claim 10 includes detachment of a nozzle plate is detected when the current flow falls below a predetermined value, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 1 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
As to claim 11, claim 11 includes wear of the piezo element is detected when the detected sound level or current flow falls below a predetermined value, when in combination with all other elements in the claim 1 distinguish the present invention from the prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855