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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
test pattern 112-M as described in paragraph [0047].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, lines 16-17 (see paragraph [0009]), it is noted that the specification describes the ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit “is configured to (a) print plural test patterns on a print sheet using the recording head.” However, this language is not accurate as compared to what is known in the art. In particular, the language on page 2 implies that the ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit is capable of performing a printing operation, but since this unit is part of the disclosed controller (see paragraph [0032]), it lacks the necessary components to physically print a test pattern. Furthermore, this language is not accurate as compared with the description in the specification in paragraph [0051] which describes that the ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit “causes” the image outputting unit to print the test patterns. To correct this issue, it is suggested that the language throughout the disclosure (specification and abstract) stating the detection unit “is configured to (a) print plural test patterns” be amended to recite the detection unit --is configured to (a) cause the recording head to print plural test patterns.-- Additionally, on page 2, lines 27-29, it is suggested that the phrase “determines a test pattern that densities at periodical ejection malfunction positions have been corrected” be amended to recite --determines a test pattern in which densities at periodical ejection malfunction positions have been corrected-- to correct an obvious grammatical error.
On page 11, line 9 (see paragraph [0042]), it is suggested that the term “patter” be delete and replaced with --pattern-- to correct an obvious typographical error. On page 11, line 10, it is suggested that the phrase “for that” be deleted and replaced with the phrase “in which’’ to correct an obvious grammatical error and use less awkward language. Additionally, on page 11, line 14, it is suggested that the term “that” be deleted and replaced with the phrase --in which-- to correct an obvious grammatical error and use less awkward language.
On page 13, line 1 (see paragraph [0053]), it is suggested that the term “that” be deleted and replaced with the phrase --in which-- to correct an obvious grammatical error and use less awkward language. A similar change is suggested for the term “that” on page 15, line 20 (paragraph [0062]) and page 16, line 16 (paragraph [0068]).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: As explained in the specification objection above, it is suggested that the phrase “An ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit prints plural test patterns on a print sheet using a recording head…” at the beginning of the abstract be amended to recite --An ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit causes the recording head to print plural test patterns on a print sheet...-- Additionally, in line 11, it is suggested that the term “that” be deleted and replaced with the phrase --in which-- to correct an obvious grammatical error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit,” “an ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit,” and “a storage device” in claims 1-2 and “a correction processing unit” in claims 3-4.
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. Note the structures of the control unit, the ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit, and the correcting unit are described in paragraph [0032] of the specification. Additionally the structure of the storage device is described in paragraph [0030].
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 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 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “an ejection malfunction detecting unit configured to (a) print plural test patterns on a print sheet using the recording head” in lines 8-10. However, this language is unclear and does not appear to be accurate with respect to what is known in the art and otherwise described in paragraph [0051] of the specification. In particular, from the context of the disclosure, the ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit is part of the control unit, not the image outputting unit, and is thereby not equipped to perform a printing operation. To correct this issue, it is suggested that the claim language be changed to the following: --an ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit configured to (a) cause the recording head to print plural test patterns on a print sheet.--
Additionally, with respect to claim 1, the phrase “(a) determines a test pattern that densities at periodical ejection malfunction positions have been corrected among the plural test patterns” in the last paragraph (lines 22-25 of claim 1) is awkward and unclear in meaning. To correct this problem, it is suggested that the term “that” in the above phrase be deleted and replaced with the phrase --in which--. Note that a similar correction should be made to the identical language that occurs in claim 2.
Additionally in claim 1, in line 26, it is suggested that the phrase “scanned image” (singular) be deleted and replaced with the term --scanned images-- (plural) since plural scanned images were previously recited in the line 11 of claim 1. Note consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 2, line 3, it is suggested that the term “line-shaped or band-shaped image” (singular) be deleted and replaced with the phrase --line-shaped or band-shaped images-- (plural) to use consistent terminology with claim 1 (lines 16-17). Additionally, in line 5, the term “this period” is unclear in meaning as to which period is being referred to. Also, in line 10, it is suggested that the phrase “scanned image” (singular) be deleted and replaced with the term --scanned images-- (plural) since plural scanned images were previously recited in the line 11 of claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, the term “the correction processing unit” in line 2 has no proper antecedent basis because the correction processing unit was previously recited in claim 3 and claim 4 depends upon claim 1 directly. To correct this issue, it is suggested that claim 4 be amended to depend upon claim 3.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest an image forming apparatus having the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including, an ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit configured to (a) cause the recording head to print plural test patterns on a print sheet and (b) detect ejection malfunction nozzles on the basis of scanned images of the plural test patterns, wherein the plural test patterns are line-shaped or band-shaped images for which a correction process has been performed at plural nozzle positions with a predetermined period, the nozzle positions of the plural test patterns are specified with offset positions different from each other; and the ejection malfunction nozzle detecting unit (a) determines a test pattern in which densities at periodical ejection malfunction positions have been corrected among the plural test patterns on the basis of density distributions of scanned image of the test patterns, and (b) stores as the ejection malfunction nozzle data an offset position of the determined test pattern into the storage device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goto et al. (US 2023/0105968 A1) and Tamagawa (US 8,777,361 B2) each teach an image forming apparatus including density measurement from test patterns having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 pm.
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 D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853