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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1 including claims 1-4 and 9 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the search for any one species would necessarily encompass a search for the other species. This is not found persuasive because a full and complete search of all the species would require additional search queries and terms to encompass features and layouts found in the species such as the presence or lack of a temporary curing section and actual curing section, the layouts of the nozzle rows being placed in parallel or in series, and the movement of the head unit.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0015] “shoeing the head” should read “showing the head” to correct an obvious typographical error.
In paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0018], [0034] and [0066] the irradiation section is irradiating ultra violet beams. The use of the word irradiate is incorrect here as the beams should be radiated from the irradiating section to irradiate an object. These usages of the word irradiate should be changed to radiate in the appropriate areas.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium” is unclear for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the word “irradiate” is used incorrectly and should instead be radiate. The irradiation section radiates ultraviolet rays to irradiate the ink not the other way around. Secondly, the phrase “and that” makes it unclear what is landing on the print medium, whether it’s the ultraviolet rays or the ink. It should read either “and” or “that”. For the purposes of examination, the term irradiate is taken to be radiate.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the control section is configured to enable selection of at least one selected print mode” is unclear because when “selected” is in the past tense and when the claim is selecting a print mode it sounds like a user selected a print mode before selecting a print mode. The wording is awkward and makes the claim unclear. One possible way this can be fixed by removing the word “selected”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the control section is configured to enable selection of a plurality of selected print modes via the operation section” is unclear because when “selected” is in the past tense and when the claim is talking about selecting a print mode it sounds like a user selected a print mode before selecting a print mode. The wording is awkward and it makes the claim unclear. One possible way this can be fixed by removing the word “selected”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “when a plurality of selected print modes are selected” is unclear because when the “selected print modes” are in the past tense and when the applicant is talking about selecting a print mode it sounds like a user selected a print mode before selecting a print mode.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “when printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color, the first nozzle row, the first temporary curing section as the temporary curing section, the second nozzle row, and the second temporary curing section as the temporary curing section are disposed in this order” is unclear because the comma after “the first color” makes it seem like the first color is part of the following list of features when, in view of the specification, it is not. Put another way, it is grammatically awkward when a comma is used to define 2 different clauses and then almost immediately after a comma is used to define parts of a list.
Regarding claim 9, The phrase “A printing method for printing device, the printing device including” should read “A printing method for a printing device, the printing device including”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium” is unclear for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the word “irradiate” is used incorrectly and should instead be radiate. The irradiation section radiates ultraviolet rays to irradiate the ink not the other way around. Secondly, the phrase “and that” makes it unclear what is landing on the print medium, whether it’s the ultraviolet rays or the ink. It should read either “and” or “that”. For the purposes of examination, the term irradiate is taken to be radiate.
The phrase “the control section is configured to enable selection of a plurality of selected print modes via the operation section” is unclear because when “selected” is in the past tense and when the claim is talking about selecting a print mode it sounds like a user selected a print mode before selecting a print mode. The wording is awkward and makes the claim unclear. It can be fixed by removing the word “selected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
A movement section a movement section configured to cause relative movement of the print medium and the head unit in claims 1 and 9.
An irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium in claims 1 and 9.
A storage section is configured to store a plurality of print modes in which printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color in claim 1 and 9.
A control section is configured to enable selection of at least one selected print mode from among the plurality of print modes via the operation section in claim 1 and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the movement section, the corresponding structure can be found in paragraph [0039] and is a roller.
Regarding the irradiation section, no specific or sufficient structure is provided to perform the claimed functionality.
Regarding the storage section, the structure can be found in paragraph [0040] as an item that can store information and store new information. This structure is not specific or sufficient structure to perform the claimed functionality (see the below rejections).
Regarding the control section, no specific or sufficient structure is provided to perform the claimed functionality.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim invokes 112(f) with the phrase “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium”. However, no specific or sufficient structure to perform the claimed functionality can be found in the specification as such this feature fails the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 1, the claim invokes 112(f) with the phrase “the storage section is configured to store a plurality of print modes in which printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color”. The structure can be found in paragraph [0040] as an item that can store information and store new information. However, this structure is not specific or sufficient to perform the claimed functionality and as such fails the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 1, the claim invokes 112(f) with the phrase “the control section is configured to enable selection of at least one selected print mode from among the plurality of print modes via the operation section”. However, no specific or sufficient structure to perform the claimed functionality can be found in the specification as such this feature fails the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 9, the claim invokes 112(f) with the phrase “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium”. However, no specific or sufficient structure to perform the claimed functionality can be found in the specification as such this feature fails the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 9, the claim invokes 112(f) with the phrase “the storage section is configured to store a plurality of print modes in which printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color”. The structure can be found in paragraph [0040] as an item that can store information and store new information. However, this structure is not specific or sufficient to perform the claimed functionality and as such fails the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 9, the claim invokes 112(f) with the phrase “the control section is configured to enable selection of at least one selected print mode from among the plurality of print modes via the operation section”. However, no specific or sufficient structure to perform the claimed functionality can be found in the specification as such this feature fails the written description requirement.
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 1-4 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium” invokes 122(f) however no structure can be found in the specification. As such it is unclear what structure the claim is claiming and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the storage section is configured to store a plurality of print modes in which printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color” invokes 112(f) and the structure can be found in paragraph [0040] as an object that can store and receive new information. This structure is not specific or sufficient to perform the claimed functionality so it is unclear what would infringe on the claim. Does a memory card, filing cabinet, or CD read on the claim? As such the meets and bounds of the claim are unknown and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the control section is configured to enable selection of at least one selected print mode from among the plurality of print modes via the operation section” however no structure can be found in the specification. As such it is unclear what structure the claim is claiming and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium” but earlier recites “a head unit that has nozzle rows in which a plurality of nozzles are arranged”. Which of the nozzles is ejecting ink to be cured by the irradiation section? Since it is unclear, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the printing device has, as the nozzle rows, a first nozzle row” but earlier recites “a head unit that has nozzle rows”. Which element has the nozzle rows or are the nozzle rows on the printing device a different set of nozzle rows from those found on the head unit? As such the claim is unclear and indefinite and should likely read “the head unit has, as nozzle rows, a first nozzle row”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In particular, it is noted that the term “a print duty” has been used twice in claim 1. This term is indefinite because, based on the context of the claim language, it appears this term is intended to mean the amount of ink required to perform one specific print job. However, the accepted meaning of “print duty” according to Google is the maximum amount of pages a printer can handle in a month without compromising its performance. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of examination “print duty” is taken to mean the applicant’s seemingly intended meaning.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “distribute the first color data into the first ink and the second ink based on the ratio” is unclear as it is unknown how color data can be placed into an ink. As such the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, “distribute the first color data into the first ink and the second ink based on the averaged average ratio” is unclear as it is unknown how color data can be placed into an ink. As such the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium” invokes 122(f) however no structure can be found in the specification. As such it is unclear what structure the claim is claiming and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the storage section is configured to store a plurality of print modes in which printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color” invokes 112(f) and the structure can be found in paragraph [0040] as an object that can store and receive new information. This structure is not specific or sufficient so it is unclear what would infringe on the claim. Does a memory card, filing cabinet, or CD read on the claim? As such the meets and bounds of the claim are unknown and the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the control section is configured to enable selection of at least one selected print mode from among the plurality of print modes via the operation section” however no structure can be found in the specification. As such it is unclear what structure the claim is claiming and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “an irradiation section configured to irradiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzle and that landed on the print medium” but earlier recites “a head unit that has nozzle rows in which a plurality of nozzles are arranged”. Which of the nozzles is ejecting ink to be cured by the irradiation section? Since it is unclear the claim is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “the printing device has, as the nozzle rows, a first nozzle row” but earlier recites “a head unit that has nozzle rows”. Which element has the nozzle rows or are the nozzle rows on the printing device a different set of nozzle rows from those found on the head unit? As such the claim is indefinite and should likely read “the head unit has, as nozzle rows, a first nozzle row”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In particular, it is noted that the term “a print duty” has been used twice in claim 1. This term is indefinite because, based on the context of the claim language, it appears this term is intended to mean the amount of ink required to perform one specific print job. However, the accepted meaning of “print duty” according to Google is the maximum amount of pages a printer can handle in a month without compromising its performance. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of examination “print duty” is taken to mean the applicant’s seemingly intended meaning.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “distribute the first color data into the first ink and the second ink based on the ratio” is unclear as it is unknown how color data can be placed into an ink. As such the claim is indefinite.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki (JP 2011168000 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyuki teaches a head unit that has nozzle rows in which a plurality of nozzles are arranged (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4B element 41B) and is configured to eject an ultraviolet curable ink to a print medium from the nozzles based on print data (paragraph [0022]);
a movement section configured to cause relative movement of the print medium and the head unit that is a roller (Fig. 1 elements 11A and B and 12 A and B and paragraph [0020]);
an irradiation section configured to radiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzles and landed on the print medium (Fig. 4B 81C and 81D paragraph [0037]);
an operation section (paragraph [0050]);
a storage section (Fig. 3 element 61 and paragraph [0051]); and
a control section (Fig. 3 element 110 and paragraph [0050]), wherein
the head unit has, as the nozzle rows, a first nozzle row configured to eject a first ink of a first color as the ultraviolet curable ink (Fig. 4B element CL1 and paragraph [0036]), and a second nozzle row configured to eject a second ink of the first color as the ultraviolet curable ink (Fig.4B element CL2 and paragraph [0036]),) having characteristics different from those of the first ink (paragraph [0038]),
the storage section is configured to store a plurality of print modes in which printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color (Fig. 3 element 61 and paragraph [0051]), the plurality of print modes having different ratios between the first ink ejected from the first nozzle row and the second ink ejected from the second nozzle row (paragraph [0051]),
the control section is configured to enable selection of at least one print mode from among the plurality of print modes via the operation section (Fig. 3 element 110 and paragraph [0050]), and
the control section is configured to, when the print data includes first color data to be printed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color, distribute the first ink and the second ink based on the ratio of the selected print mode and then print (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroyuki teaches a head unit that has nozzle rows in which a plurality of nozzles are arranged Fig. 1 and Fig. 4B element 41B) and is configured to eject an ultraviolet curable ink to a print medium from the nozzles based on print data (paragraph [0022]);
a movement section configured to cause relative movement of the print medium and the head unit that is a roller (Fig. 1 elements 11A and B and 12 A and B and paragraph [0020]);
an irradiation section configured to radiate ultraviolet rays to cure the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzles and landed on the print medium (Fig. 4B 81C and 81D paragraph [0037]);
an operation section (paragraph [0050]);
a storage section (Fig. 3 element 61 and paragraph [0051]); and
a control section (Fig. 3 element 110 and paragraph [0050]), wherein
the head unit has, as the nozzle rows, a first nozzle row configured to eject a first ink of a first color as the ultraviolet curable ink (Fig. 4B element CL1 and paragraph [0036]), and a second nozzle row configured to eject a second ink of the first color as the ultraviolet curable ink (Fig. 4B element CL1 and paragraph [0036]), having characteristics different from those of the first ink (paragraph [0038]),
the storage section is configured to store a plurality of print modes in which printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color (Fig. 3 element 61 and paragraph [0051]), the plurality of print modes having different ratios between the first ink ejected from the first nozzle row the second ink ejected from the second nozzle row (paragraph [0051]),
the control section is configured to enable selection of at least one print mode from among the plurality of print modes via the operation section (Fig. 3 element 110 and paragraph [0050]),
the method comprising:
when the print data includes first color data to be printed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color, the first ink and the second ink are distributed based on the ratio of the selected print mode and then printed (paragraph [0050]).
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki (JP 2011168000 A) in view of Kusunoki (US 20060203024 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroyuki teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and teaches being capable of ejecting of ejecting inks with different wettabilities, but fails to teach the first nozzle row is disposed such that the first ink is ejected to the print medium before the second ink when printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color with respect to the second nozzle row. However, Kusunoki does teach the first nozzle row (Modified version of Fig. 4 found below element 1) is disposed such that the first ink is ejected to the print medium before the second ink when printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color with respect to the second nozzle row (Modified version of Fig. 4 found below element 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the configuration of nozzles found in Kusunoki in the printing device of Hiroyuki as a simple substitution for the layout of nozzles to yield a layout of nozzles with the improved capabilities.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hiroyuki and Kusunoki teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Kusunoki teaches the irradiation section includes an actual curing section configured to perform actual curing by irradiating the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzles and that landed on the print medium with ultraviolet rays (Fig. 4 element 18 and paragraph [0095]), and a temporary curing section configured to perform temporary curing with a lower curing degree than the actual curing by irradiating the ultraviolet curable ink that was ejected from the nozzles and that landed on the print medium with ultraviolet rays (modified version of Fig. 4 elements 2 and 4 and paragraph [0095]),
each of the nozzle rows is formed such that the plurality of nozzles are arranged in a width direction that intersects a relative movement direction of the print medium and the head unit (Fig. 5), and
when printing is performed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color, the first nozzle row (modified version of Fig. 4 above element 1), the first temporary curing section as the temporary curing section (modified version of Fig. 4 above element 2), the second nozzle row (modified version of Fig. 4 above element 3), and the second temporary curing section as the temporary curing section (modified version of Fig. 4 above element 4) are disposed in this order, which is the order in which the print medium faces them in the relative movement direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a printing device having all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including; a control section wherein when a plurality of selected print modes are selected, the control section averages the ratios of the selected print modes and when the print data includes the first color data to be printed using the ultraviolet curable ink of the first color, the control section distributes the first color data into the first ink and the second ink based on the averaged average ratio and then prints.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hiroyuki et al. (JP 2011083915 A), Arita et al. (US-20220306885-A1), and Condello et al. (US 10882337 B1) are cited as having structure similar to the claimed invention.
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
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853