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
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06 April 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species in the reply filed on 06 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “it would not be an undue burden on the Examiner to examine all of the pending claims in the present application.” This is not found persuasive because one species recites the first pattern and the second pattern being two lines of patterns, and the other embodiment recites the first pattern and the second pattern being each a pattern in the form of a single patch with specific characteristics, requiring different search queries and additional examination since prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 April 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 and 12 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. Claims 1 and 12 recite “a second pattern printed by using ejection ports not used in the printing of the first pattern and at least one of the ejection ports used in the printing of the first pattern” in lines 13-15 and 14-16, respectively. This limitation is unclear and contradictory. It requires printing the second pattern with ejection ports “not used in the printing of the first pattern” while simultaneously requiring “at least one of the ejection ports used in the printing of the first pattern.” A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with certainty whether the claim requires: (1) exclusion of all ejection ports not used in the printing of the first pattern, (2) inclusion of at least one of the ejection ports used in the printing of the first pattern, or (3) some other combination. Therefore, the meets and bounds of e claim cannot be ascertained. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, and are rejected in the same manner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakatsuji et al. (US 2019/0299605 – hereinafter Nakatsuji.)
Regarding claim 1,
Nakatsuji discloses an inspection method for inspecting a liquid ejection head [6 in figs. 1-4] in which a plurality of element substrates [62 in fig. 3 (which includes substrates 7 / 8 in figs. 4 and 7)] are arrayed, the plurality of element substrates each being a substrate in which are formed an ejection port array consisting of a plurality of ejection ports [61 in fig. 3] for ejecting a liquid [paragraphs 0033 and 0039-0040], the inspection method comprising:
printing an inspection pattern [adjustment chart 9 (including first line L1 and second line L2)] on a print medium [paragraphs 0051-0056 and 0117];
reading the inspection pattern printed on the print medium in the printing [paragraphs 0063 and 0117; step #13 in fig. 6; also, see paragraphs 0126-0127, which teach an image reading device that reads the print result of the adjustment chart];
calculating droplet landing accuracy of each individual one of the plurality of element substrates based on positional coordinates of landed dots included in the inspection pattern read in the reading [paragraphs 0063-0069 and 0117-0118]; and
calculating droplet landing accuracy at a joint portion [6a in figs. 4 and 7] between adjacent ones of the element substrates based on the positional coordinates [paragraphs 0040, 0064-0065, 0097-0099, and 0117], wherein
the inspection pattern includes a first pattern [L1 in fig. 8] printed by using a plurality of ejection ports covering the joint portion between the adjacent element substrates [paragraph 0055, “The control unit 1 makes the nozzles 61 in the overlapping portion 6a of the upstream-side head 7 print the first line L1”], and a second pattern [L2 in fig. 8] printed by using ejection ports not used in the printing of the first pattern [paragraph 0056, “The control unit 1 makes the nozzles 61 in the overlapping portion 6a of the downstream-side head 8 print the second line L2”] and at least one of the ejection ports used in the printing of the first pattern [line L2a is made by ejection ports of the downstream-side head 8 and joins with line L1a made by ejection ports of the upstream-side head 7 to make a single line; paragraph 0060, “The second reference line L2a is a second line L2 that is paired with the first reference line L1a”; also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 2,
Nakatsuji further discloses wherein the inspection pattern includes two lines of patterns as the first pattern and the second pattern [as seen in fig. 8.]
Regarding claim 3,
Nakatsuji further discloses wherein the at least one ejection port that ejects the liquid in both the printing of the first pattern and the printing of the second pattern is a substantially center ejection port in the ejection port array [as seen in fig. 8.]
Regarding claim 4,
Nakatsuji further discloses wherein the printing includes printing the inspection pattern while conveying the print medium in a direction orthogonal to an array direction of the plurality of element substrates [paragraph 0062.]
Regarding claim 5,
Nakatsuji further discloses the inspection method further comprising obtaining information of the positional coordinates [paragraph 0051.]
Regarding claim 12,
Nakatsuji discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute an inspection method as recited in claim 1 [the rejection does not need to be repeated; please see Rejection above.]
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon overcoming the 112 Rejection above, please note that Claims 6-9 would be 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6,
The primary reason for allowance for this claim is the inclusion of the limitations of claim 1, further reciting wherein the calculating the droplet landing accuracy of each individual one of the plurality of element substrates includes:
deriving a single virtual lattice based on a first landed dot coordinate read from the first pattern and a second landed dot coordinate read from the second pattern; and
calculating the droplet landing accuracy of the individual element substrate by using the single virtual lattice.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Regarding claims 7-9,
The primary reason for allowance for these claims is claim 7 including the limitations of claim 1, further reciting wherein the calculating the droplet landing accuracy at the joint portion includes:
deriving a first virtual lattice and a second virtual lattice based on landed dot coordinates read from one of the first pattern or the second pattern;
calculating the droplet landing accuracy at the joint portion based on a relative positional relationship between the first virtual lattice and the second virtual lattice.
It is these limitations, in combination as claimed, that have not been taught, found, or suggested by prior art.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights