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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding paragraph [0024], the phrase “an actual curing section configured to perform actual curing by radiating the ultraviolet curable ink” should read “an actual curing section configured to perform actual curing by irradiating the ultraviolet curable ink”.
Regarding paragraph [0024], the phrase “a lower curing degree than the actual curing by radiating the ultraviolet curable ink” should read “a lower curing degree than the actual curing by irradiating the ultraviolet curable ink”.
Regarding paragraph [0026], the phrase an actual curing section configured to perform actual curing by radiating the ultraviolet curable ink” should read “an actual curing section configured to perform actual curing by irradiating the ultraviolet curable ink”.
Regarding paragraph [0026], the phrase “a lower curing degree than the actual curing by radiating the ultraviolet curable ink” should read “a lower curing degree than the actual curing by irradiating the ultraviolet curable ink”.
Regarding paragraph [0028], the phrase an actual curing section configured to perform actual curing by radiating the ultraviolet curable ink” should read “an actual curing section configured to perform actual curing by irradiating the ultraviolet curable ink”.
Regarding paragraph [0040], the phrase “SU12 are provided as radiation sections radiate the ultraviolet curable ink” should read “SU12 are provided as radiation sections to irradiate the ultraviolet curable ink”
Regarding paragraph [0040], the phrase “ultraviolet curable ink I that landed on the print medium M is radiated with ultraviolent rays” should read “ultraviolet curable ink I that landed on the print medium M is irradiated with ultraviolent rays”. The examiner notes that this particular error occurs twice in paragraph [0040] and both require correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner notes that the radiation section radiate ultraviolet rays to irradiate the ink and print medium.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a first nozzle row comprises a first plurality” should read a first nozzle row comprising a first plurality”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “as the first ultra violet curable include but” should read “as the first ultraviolet curable ink but”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the selected print mode, and prints the pixel by printing” should read “the selected print mode
Regarding claim 3, “a first nozzle row comprises a first plurality” should read a first nozzle row comprising a first plurality”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “as the first ultra violet curable include but” should read “as the first ultraviolet curable ink but”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “a printing method for printing device” should read “a printing method for a printing device”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “as the first ultra violet curable include but” should read “as the first ultraviolet curable ink but”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are 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 ultraviolet curable ink" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the color" twice in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the ultraviolet curable ink" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the color" twice in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the color" in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 2 uses exactly the same language used in claim 1 therefore it does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights