DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the inline scanner” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 2, 5-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida et al. (2009/0289985) in view of Itagaki (9,229,405) and Harada (2019/0118557).
Regarding claim 1, Sumida teaches a method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application, comprising:
passing a diagnostic media in proximity to a first printhead comprising a plurality of ejector jets (see fig. 1, note that all media passes all heads 41-44);
depositing a precoat solution onto the diagnostic media in a first predetermined pattern (fig. 5, S2, [0089]);
passing the diagnostic media in proximity to at least a second printhead comprising a plurality of ejector jets (see fig. 1, note that all media is “passed in proximity to” all printheads, and all printheads have pluralities of ejector jets);
depositing a plurality of droplets of at least one ink compositions onto the diagnostic media in a second predetermined pattern (fig. 5, S3, [0091]-[0092]); and
capturing, by the inline scanner (fig. 1, item 50), an image of a printed pattern, the printed pattern comprising the first predetermined pattern ([0100]) and the second predetermined pattern ([0100]), on the diagnostic media (fig. 5, S5).
Sumida does not teach firing each of the plurality of ejector jets onto the diagnostic media to print a trigger pattern
Upon combination, the resultant device would have one of Sumida’s printheads 41-44 creating a trigger pattern of the type disclosed by Itagaki just before S2 of Sumida so that, just after the trigger pattern was formed, a precoat test pattern TP1 would be formed, then a color ink pattern TP2 would be formed, and when the trigger pattern was captured by the inline scanner 50, the inline scanner would then scan the precoat pattern and the color ink pattern.
Examiner acknowledges that Itagaki is directed to an electrophotographic printer while Sumida is directed to an inkjet printer. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains that employing a trigger pattern of the type disclosed by Itagaki would have been obvious for any type of printer using charts to evaluate its printed product. That is, while the test patterns disclosed by Sumida and Itagaki serve slightly different purposes, using a trigger pattern, which is the only part of Itagaki being combined with Sumida, so that an inline scanner initiates a capture of any type of test pattern would have been obvious for any device printing any such test pattern.
Sumida in view of Itagaki does not teach wherein the precoat solution comprises 20% to 40% by weight of a salt in an aqueous solution based on a total weight of the aqueous solution. Harada teaches this (Harada, Table 3, Note salt contents in 20’s%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pretreatment fluid with a salt content of Harada’s in the device disclosed by Sumida in view of Itagaki because doing so would amount to combining a known pretreatment liquid formulation with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1, further comprising:
analyzing the printed pattern of the captured image (Sumida, fig. 5, S6); and
comparing the printed pattern of the captured image to the second predetermined pattern (Sumida, fig. 5, S7, Note that the second predetermined pattern is that with line widths at the disclosed threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1, wherein the image of the printed pattern on the diagnostic media is captured with a scanner (Sumida, fig. 1, item 50) that is inline with respect to a printing process path (Sumida, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1, wherein
the trigger pattern is placed on the diagnostic media such that the trigger pattern is captured by the inline scanner as the printed patter is being created (Itagaki, col. 11, lines 13-20, see fig. 13B, Note trigger patterns TR for each color. Note also that the detection of the trigger pattern by the inline sensors 200 signals to the controller that a starting of test pattern measurement is required).
Regarding claim 7, Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1, wherein the diagnostic media comprises uncoated paper (Sumida, Note that preprocessing fluid is needed because the medium is uncoated).
Regarding claim 14, Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1, wherein depositing a plurality of droplets of at least one ink compositions onto the diagnostic media in a second predetermined pattern comprises depositing a plurality of droplets of at least four ink compositions (Sumida, see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida in view of Itagaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uetsuki et al. (2022/0324233).
Regarding claim 3, Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1. Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada does not teach performing a maintenance procedure to correct a primer printhead defect. Uetsuki teaches this (Uetsuki, see figs. 3, 5, Note that primer head 25-3 is wiped by wiper 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wipe the precoat head when maintenance was needed because doing so would help maintain the precoat head.
Regarding claim 4, Sumida in view of Itagaki, Harada and Uetsuki teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 3, wherein the maintenance procedure to correct a primer printhead defect comprises cleaning a face of the first printhead, performing a maintenance jetting procedure using the first printhead, flushing the first printhead, replacing the first printhead, or a combination thereof (Uetsuki, see figs. 3, 5, Note that primer head 25-3 is wiped by wiper 54).
Claim(s) 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida in view of Itagaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (2012/0274693).
Regarding claim 8, Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1. Sumida in view of Itagaki and Harada does not teach wherein the first predetermined pattern comprises a plurality of dashes. Suzuki teaches this (Suzuki, fig. 6, Note precoat test patterns). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ same first and second predetermined test patterns because doing so would allow for reduction of waste of primer or ink by minimizing the amount of both fluids used.
Regarding claim 9, Sumida in view of Itagaki, Harada and Suzuki teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 8, wherein the dashes are parallel lines (Suzuki, see fig. 6, Note that any number of lines can be chosen to represent the claimed parallel lines).
Regarding claim 10, Sumida in view of Itagaki, Harada and Suzuki teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 9, wherein the parallel lines are from about 2 to about 5 pixels apart from one another (Suzuki, fig. 6, Note that spaces in between dashes of the precoat solution are “about 2 to about 5” pixels apart).
Regarding claim 11, Sumida in view of Itagaki, Harada and Suzuki teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 8, wherein the dashes are not parallel lines (Suzuki, fig. 6, Note that any two dashes can be selected to be not parallel).
Regarding claim 12, Sumida in view of Itagaki, Harada and Suzuki teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 11, wherein the dashes are from about 2 to about 20 pixels apart from one another (Suzuki, fig. 6, Note that spaces in between dashes of the precoat solution are “about 2 to about 20” pixels apart).
.
Regarding claim 13, Sumida in view of Itagaki, Harada and Suzuki teaches the method for detecting missing or misdirected jets in a drop on demand delivery system for media priming in an inkjet printing application of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined pattern and the second predetermined pattern are the same (Suzuki, fig. 6, Note that black and precoat patterns are both crosses).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims.
The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights