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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 26 March 2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US 2013/0187969 A1) in view of Takekoshi et al. (US 2022/0388321 A1).
As related to independent claims 1, 15, & 16, Miyahara teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions [claim 16] that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method [claim 15] to control an apparatus [claim 1] comprising: at least one processor, and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing instructions (Miyahara – Page 1, Paragraph 12 and Figure 3, shown below) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: count data representing outputs of a plurality of printing elements of a printhead in printing data used in one scan of the printhead of an inkjet printing apparatus (Miyahara – Page 3, Paragraph 43, Page 4; Paragraph 60 – Page 5, Paragraph 63; and Page 5, Paragraph 64 – Page 6, Paragraph 82 and Figure 4, shown below); and, based on a threshold and a printing dot count representing a sum of the data counted in the printing data, set at least one of (a) a wait time after printing according to the printing data or some of the printing data, and (b) division of the printing data (Miyahara –Page 4; Paragraph 60 – Page 5, Paragraph 63; and Page 5, Paragraph 64 – Page 6, Paragraph 82 and Figures 4 & 9, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
594
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
532
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Continuing with independent claims 1, 15, & 16, Miyahara does not specifically teach setting a wait time after printing according to the printing data or some of the printing data. However, Takekoshi et al. teaches a printing apparatus comprising: at least one processor, and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory storing instructions (Takekoshi et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 10-12; Page 7, Paragraphs 86-88; and Figure 5, shown below) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: count data representing outputs of a plurality of printing elements of a printhead in printing data used in one scan of the printhead of an inkjet printing apparatus (Takekoshi et al. – Page 9, Paragraphs 126-134) and specifically teaches set at least one of (a) a wait time after printing according to the printing data or some of the printing data, and (b) division of the printing data (Takekoshi et al. – Page 8, Paragraphs 118-121; Page 9, Paragraph 126-134; and Figures 9A-9B, shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
454
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
698
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
486
468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the choices for response to the printing dot count threshold being reached of Miyahara with the responses of Takekoshi et al. in an effort to enable improved throughput, suppress a drop in image quality, and allow for larger capacity ink tanks (Takekoshi et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 2, 7, and 9).
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach if the printing dot count is not more than the threshold, the at least one processor sets a wait time associated with the printing dot count as the wait time (Takekoshi et al. – Page 8, Paragraphs 118-121; Page 9, Paragraph 126-134; and Figures 9A-9B, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the printing dot count is an average printing dot count obtained by dividing the printing dot count by a total time of a time required for the one scan and the wait time, and the threshold is an allowable printing dot count representing an upper limit of the average printing dot count (Miyahara –Page 4; Paragraph 60 – Page 5, Paragraph 63; and Page 5, Paragraph 64 – Page 6, Paragraph 82 and Takekoshi et al. – Page 9, Paragraph 126 and Page 11, Paragraph 168).
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach if the printing dot count is more than the threshold, the at least one processor divides the printing data into first printing data associated with a first printing element group classified in the plurality of printing elements and second printing data associated with a second printing element group that is different from the first printing element group and classified in the plurality of printing elements, and the at least one processor counts data representing outputs of the first printing element group in the first printing data and counts data representing outputs of the second printing element group in the second printing data (Miyahara –Page 4; Paragraph 60 – Page 5, Paragraph 66).
As related to further dependent claim 5, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach if a first printing dot count representing a sum of data counted in the first printing data is not more than the threshold, and a second printing dot count representing a sum of data counted in the second printing data is not more than the threshold, the at least one processor sets a wait time after printing according to the first printing data based on the first printing dot count and a wait time after printing according to the second printing data based on the second printing dot count (Miyahara – Page 5; Paragraph 66 – Page 6, Paragraph 70 and Takekoshi et al. – Page 8, Paragraph 116 – Page 9, Paragraph 124 and Figures 9A-9B, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach if a first printing dot count representing a sum of data counted in the first printing data is not more than the threshold, and a second printing dot count representing a sum of data counted in the second printing data is more than the threshold, the at least one processor divides the printing data into not less than three printing data respectively corresponding to not less than three printing element groups classified in the printing data (Miyahara – Page 5; Paragraph 66 – Page 6, Paragraph 82 and Figure 9, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to obtain a printing mode of the printhead (Miyahara – Page 1, Paragraph 12 and Takekoshi et al. – Page 9, Paragraph 123).
As related to further dependent claim 8, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the printing mode includes pieces of information which associate a type and a printing quality of a print medium, a printing pass count of the printhead, a scan speed, and a maximum wait time, and the threshold is a maximum printing dot count corresponding to the maximum wait time and indicating an upper limit of the printing dot count in the printing data (Miyahara – Page 3, Paragraphs 46-50 & Page 4, Paragraphs 60-63 and Takekoshi et al. – Page 8, Paragraphs 118-121).
As related to dependent claim 9, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the plurality of printing elements comprise a plurality of electrothermal conversion elements, and the printhead comprises the plurality of printing elements and a plurality of discharge ports facing the plurality of printing elements and configured to discharge a printing material to a printing medium side (Miyahara – Page 1, Paragraphs 12-13 & Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30 and Takekoshi et al. – Figures 1 & 2, shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
306
450
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
368
422
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 10, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the at least one processor sets a wait time such that a wait time after the printhead completes all printing operations according to printing data of one page to a time shorter than the wait time after printing according to some of the printing data of one page (Miyahara – Page 5; Paragraph 66 – Page 6, Paragraph 70 and Takekoshi et al. – Page 8, Paragraph 116 – Page 9, Paragraph 124 and Figures 9A-9B, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 11, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the at least one processor sets a division number of the printing data based on the printing dot count (Miyahara – Page 5; Paragraph 66 – Page 6, Paragraph 82 and Figure 9, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 12, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to control a printing operation of the printhead based on a setting result (Miyahara – Page 1, Paragraphs 12-13 & Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30 and Takekoshi et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 10-12; Page 7, Paragraphs 86-88; and Figure 5, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 13, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the at least one processor sets at least one of the wait time and division of the printing data before starting printing of the printhead (Miyahara –Page 4; Paragraph 60 – Page 5, Paragraph 63; and Page 5, Paragraph 64 – Page 6, Paragraph 82 and Figures 4 & 9, shown above and Takekoshi et al. – Page 8, Paragraphs 118-121; Page 9, Paragraph 126-134; and Figures 9A-9B, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 14, the combination of Miyahara and Takekoshi et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach an inkjet printing apparatus comprising: a carriage unit configured to perform printing based on printing data while reciprocally scanning a printhead configured to apply a printing material to a print medium with respect to the print medium, and the control apparatus (Miyahara – Page 1, Paragraphs 12-13 & Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30 and Takekoshi et al. – Figures 1 & 2, shown above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murakami et al. (US 6,557,969 B1) teaches a printing apparatus which uses thresholds and printing dot count to determine processing steps. Oonuki et al. (US 2011/0085003 A1) teaches a printing apparatus which uses thresholds and printing dot count related to the print head temperature to determine processing steps. Taira et al. (US 2016/0339692 A1) teaches a printing apparatus which uses thresholds and printing dot count to determine processing steps. Sasaki et al. (US 2017/0282586 A1) teaches a printing apparatus which performs dot count processing to determine issues and follow-on steps. Uryu et al. (US 2018/0009233 A1) teaches a printing apparatus which counts the print dot count and line count and then determining next steps. Oikawa et al. (US 2019/0299601 A1) teaches a printing apparatus which performs dot count processing and checks the timing based on the results. Oikawa et al. (US 2021/0060927 A1) teaches a printing apparatus which performs dot counting and compares it to a discharge inspection threshold after a predetermined time.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 EST.
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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853