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 .
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s remarks dated 19 March 2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-12 have been amended by applicant. Claims 5 and 14 have been canceled by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 19 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shepherd et al. (US 2005/0007405).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 March 2026, has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 19 March 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-3, 6-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd et al. (US 2005/0007405).
With respect to claim 1, Shepherd discloses a liquid discharging system, comprising:
a head (Fig. 7, element 712) including a first nozzle row (Fig. 7, i.e. array of element 721 in the vertical direction) and a second nozzle row (Fig. 7, i.e. another array of element 721 in the vertical direction), the first nozzle row having a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 7, array element 721) including a first nozzle (Fig. 1B, element N1) aligned in a first direction (Fig. 1B, Media Direction), the second nozzle row having a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 7, another array of element 721) including a second nozzle (Fig. 1B, i.e. element N1 in second nozzle row) aligned in the first direction (Fig. 1B, Media Direction), the first nozzle row and the second nozzle row being arrayed along a second direction (Fig. 7, Scanning Direction), the second direction intersecting with the first direction (Fig. 1B, Scanning Direction and Media Direction), the first nozzle and the second nozzle being located at positions to overlap each other in the second direction (Fig. 1B, i.e. respective N1 in the first nozzle row and the second nozzle row; paragraph 0065, i.e. redundant columns of nozzles);
a movable assembly (Fig. 5, element 524) configured to move the head (Fig. 5, elements 520, 522) in one way (Fig. 1B, i.e. left) and the other way (Fig. 1B, i.e. right) along the second direction (paragraph 0060), and
a controller system (Fig. 6, element 606) configured to control the head to discharge liquid of the same type (paragraph 0066, i.e. one color head) from the first nozzle and the second nozzle (paragraphs 0061-0062) at a recording medium (Fig. 1B, media) when the first nozzle and the second nozzle are each located at the same position (paragraph 0026, i.e. 2 drops per pixel) with respect to the recording medium while the head is moved for a single run by the movable assembly in the one way (Fig. 1B, element R2) or the other way (Fig. 1B, element R1) in the second direction relatively to the recording medium (paragraph 0023).
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning how the head is controlled are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Shepherd as applied above. Additionally Shepherd discloses the variables used to initiate a print job (paragraph 0073).
With respect to claim 2, Shepherd discloses the controller system (Fig. 6, element 606) is configured to control the head (paragraphs 0061-0062) to discharge selectively one of a first amount (paragraph 0026, i.e. 2 drops per pixel) of the liquid and a second amount (paragraph 0026, i.e. 1 drop per pixel) of the liquid from the first nozzle and the second nozzle, the second amount (paragraph 0026, i.e. 1 drop) being smaller than the first amount (paragraph 0026, i.e. 2 drops), and when the first nozzle and the second nozzle are each located at the same position (Fig. 1B, i.e. element R1 or element R2) with respect to the recording medium while the head is moved for the single run (paragraph 0023) by the movable assembly in the one way or the other way in the second direction relatively to the recording medium, the controller system is configured to control the head to discharge the second amount of the liquid (paragraph 0026, i.e. 1 drop per pixel) from each of the first nozzle and the second nozzle at the recording medium (paragraphs 0001, 0073).
With respect to claim 3, Shepherd discloses the controller system (Fig. 6, element 606) is configured to receive image data (paragraphs 0061-0063) including image data pieces (paragraph 0073) to compose an image, of which resolution corresponding to a third direction (Fig. 1B, i.e. media movement) intersecting with the second direction is equal to a product of a resolution (paragraph 0073) of an image to be printed on the recording medium and the number of nozzle rows in the head having nozzles to discharge the liquid at the recording medium when the nozzles are each located at the same position with respect to the recording medium (paragraphs 0022-0026), the controller system is configured to distribute two image data pieces adjacent in the third direction among the image data pieces in the image data to the first nozzle and the second nozzle, and the controller system is configured to control the head to discharge the liquid from the first nozzle and the second nozzle according to the two image data pieces distributed to the first nozzle and the second nozzle (paragraphs 0022-0026, 0073).
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning the image data, image data pieces, and resolution are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Shepherd as applied above.
Additionally, the examiner notes “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 6, Shepherd discloses the liquid discharging system (Fig. 5, elements 520, 522, 524), further comprising a liquid discharging apparatus (Fig. 5, element 510), the liquid discharging apparatus including the head, wherein the controller system is included in the liquid discharging apparatus (Fig. 6, element 600).
With respect to claim 7, Shepherd discloses a liquid discharging system, comprising:
a head (Fig. 7, element 712) including a first nozzle row (Fig. 7, i.e. array of element 721 in the vertical direction) and a second nozzle row (Fig. 7, i.e. another array of element 721 in the vertical direction), the first nozzle row having a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 7, array element 721) including a first nozzle (Fig. 1B, element N1) aligned in a first direction (Fig. 1B, Media Direction), the second nozzle row having a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 7, another array of element 721) including a second nozzle (Fig. 1B, i.e. element N1 in second nozzle row) aligned in the first direction (Fig. 1B, Media Direction), the first nozzle row and the second nozzle row being arrayed along a second direction (Fig. 7, Scanning Direction), the second direction intersecting with the first direction (Fig. 1B, Scanning Direction and Media Direction), the first nozzle and the second nozzle being located at positions to overlap each other in the second direction (Fig. 1B, i.e. respective N1 in the first nozzle row and the second nozzle row; paragraph 0065, i.e. redundant columns of nozzles);
a movable assembly (Fig. 5, element 524) configured to move the head (Fig. 5, elements 520, 522) in one way (Fig. 1B, i.e. left) and the other way (Fig. 1B, i.e. right) along the second direction (paragraph 0060), and
a controller system (Fig. 6, element 606) configured to
receive image data (paragraphs 0061-0063) including image data pieces (paragraph 0073) to compose an image, of which resolution corresponding to a third direction (Fig. 1B, i.e. media movement) intersecting with the second direction is equal to a product of a resolution (paragraph 0073) of an image to be printed on the recording medium and the number of nozzle rows in the head (paragraphs 0022-0026);
distribute two image data pieces adjacent in the third direction among the image data pieces in the image data to the first nozzle and the second nozzle (paragraph 0073)
control the head to discharge liquid of the same type (paragraph 0066) at the recording medium (Fig. 1B, media) from the first nozzle according to one of the two image data pieces assigned to the first nozzle (paragraphs 0022-0026) and from the second nozzle according to the other of the two image data pieces assigned to the second nozzle (paragraphs 0022-0026) while the head is moved for a single run by the movable assembly in the one way (Fig. 1B, element R2) or the other way (Fig. 1B, element R1) in the second direction relatively to the recording medium.
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning how the head is controlled are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Shepherd as applied above. Additionally Shepherd discloses the variables used to initiate a print job (paragraph 0073).
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations concerning the image data, image data pieces, and resolution are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Shepherd as applied above.
Additionally, the examiner notes “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”, see MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 8, Shepherd discloses the controller system (Fig. 6, element 606) is configured to control the head (Fig. 7, element 712) to discharge the liquid from the first nozzle and the second nozzle at the recording medium when the first nozzle and the second nozzle are each located at the same position with respect to the recording medium while the head is moved for a single run by the movable assembly in the one way or the other way in the second direction relatively to the recording medium (paragraph 0073; see the rejection of claims 1-3 above).
With respect to claim 9, Shepherd discloses the controller system (Fig. 6, element 606) is configured to control the head (Fig. 7, element 712) to discharge the liquid at different positions on the recording medium from the first nozzle and the second nozzle to compose an image, of which resolution corresponding to the second direction is equal to a product of a resolution of an image to be printed on the recording medium and the number of the nozzle rows in the head (paragraph 0073; see the rejection of claims 1-3 above).
With respect to claim 13, Shepherd discloses the liquid discharging system, further comprising a liquid discharging apparatus, the liquid discharging apparatus including the head, wherein the controller system is included in the liquid discharging apparatus (see the rejection of claim 6 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 10-12 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. See the reasons for allowance in the office action dated 19 December 2025.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 09/08/2026
Prosecution Insights