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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0045] the applicant says “correction processing unit 83 prints a test pattern” but according to the specification the correction processing unit is a part of the controller and is incapable of printing something.
Throughout the specification the applicant refers to the “upperlimit”, upper limit should have a space.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 the applicant refers to the “ejection malfunction nozzles” in both the singular and plural. When the singular is used it seems to imply the invention is capable of only fixing one nozzle and it is inconsistent. The different forms of ejection malfunction nozzle should be changed to be the same to be consistent.
Claims 1, 2 and 3 cite the “upperlimit value”, upper limit should have a space.
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 limitation is: a control unit and a correction processing unit in claim 1.
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. The control unit’s structure can be found in paragraph [0038] and is a computer. The correction processing unit’s structure is also described in paragraph [0038].
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language in claim 1 is unclear in meaning and scope, particularly with respect to the language in the last paragraph of claim 1. In particular, the phrase “the processing unit preferentially sets as a target of the correction process…” is unclear as to how the processing unit “preferentially” sets as the target one nozzle over another. In particular it is not clear the scope of the term “preferentially sets”--specifically, what is required to be considered to preferentially set something relative to another thing? How is the preference determined? Additionally, it is not clear what the language “sets as a target of the correction process” is intended to mean. In particular what is meant by the term “target”-- does this mean the target is the element being corrected by the correction process or an element being used in the correction process. Also the claim language is not clear with respect to what the correction process comprises and how it is particularly being performed. Furthermore it is not clear how one nozzle is “earlier” or later since the claim has not recited any particular timing or arrangement with respect to the claimed nozzles that results in the earlier or later deposition of ink droplets. Additionally, it is unclear how the ejection malfunction nozzle as recited in lines 8-9 corresponds to the arranged nozzles previously recited in line 3 and whether these are intended to be different structures.
Regarding claim 5, the language of the claim is so unclear that the examiner does not know what is being claimed rendering the claim indefinite and unexaminable. This claim is not being examined in light of prior art till it is corrected to distinctly and understandably claim the invention. Specifically, the phrase “an increasing amount” because an increasing amount seems to imply the amount is changing over time but it is unclear what is meant by the phrase and how it is happening. Also, the phrase “the increasing amount is changed correspondingly to an ink droplet ejection order between this ejection malfunction nozzle and the two adjacent dots” is confusing because it is unclear what order means in this context and how an increasing amount can be changed to be between the ejection malfunction nozzle and the two adjacent dots.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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, 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hattori et al. (US 20140063101 A1).
Regarding claim 1, to the extent the claim language is clear and understandable, Hattori et al. teaches, a recording head configured to eject ink corresponding to an image to be printed, using arranged nozzles (paragraph [0052] and Fig 1. Elements 46C, M , Y and K), a control unit configured to determine nozzles corresponding to the image to be printed, correspondingly to a position of a print sheet, and cause the recording head to eject ink from the nozzles (paragraph [0074] and [0075] and Fig. 4 element 11) where the control units includes an equivalent computer (paragraphs [0084] and [0085]), a correction processing unit configured to detect an ejection malfunction nozzle and perform a correction process corresponding to the ejection malfunction nozzles where the unit creates a test pattern (paragraphs [0069] and [0070] and Fig. 4 elements 60, 90 and 94), wherein if the number of the detected ejection malfunction nozzles exceeds a predetermined upper limit value (were the upper limit for this device is 0), the correction processing unit preferentially sets as a target of the correction process an ejection malfunction nozzle that ejects an ink droplet earlier than nozzles corresponding to two adjacent dots of a dot corresponding to the ejection malfunction nozzle (paragraphs [0015], [0108] and [0114] Fig. 6A and Fig. 8 continued element S44).
Regarding claim 2, Hattori et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and also teaches The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein if the number of the detected ejection malfunction nozzles exceeds the predetermined upper limit value (where the upper limit value is considered to be 0), the correction processing unit (a) sets as a primary preference nozzle an ejection malfunction nozzle that ejects an ink droplet earlier than nozzles corresponding to the two adjacent dots (paragraph [0015]), (b) sets as a secondary preference nozzle an ejection malfunction nozzle that ejects an ink droplet earlier than one of nozzles corresponding to the two adjacent dots but ejects an ink droplet later than the other of nozzles corresponding to the two adjacent dots (paragraph [0018]), and (c) sets the primary preference nozzle and the secondary preference nozzle as targets of the correction process in an order of the primary preference nozzle, the secondary preference nozzle (paragraphs [0015], [0108] and [0114], Fig. 6A and B and Fig. 8 continued element S44).
Regarding claim 3, Hattori et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and also teaches wherein if the number of the ejection malfunction nozzles that ejects an ink droplet earlier than nozzles corresponding to the two adjacent dots exceeds a predetermined upper limit value (where the upper limit value is taken to be 0), the correction processing unit selects as targets of the correction process the ejection malfunction nozzles that eject ink droplets earlier than nozzles corresponding to the respective two adjacent dots such that the number of the selected ejection malfunction nozzles is equal to or less than the predetermined upper limit value among the ejection malfunction nozzles that eject an ink droplet earlier than nozzles corresponding to the respective two adjacent dots (paragraphs [0015], [0108] and [0114], Fig. 6A and B and Fig. 8 continued element S44).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (US 20140063101 A1) in view of Yamanobe et al. (US 20070211101 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hattori et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and teaches were the correction processing unit increases an ink droplet amount of a nozzle corresponding to at least one of the two adjacent dots (paragraph [0113] and Fig. 9B) but fails to teach wherein regardless of an ejection malfunction type of the ejection malfunction nozzle, the correction processing unit (a) sets the ejection malfunction nozzle as a non-ejection nozzle. Yamanobe does teach wherein regardless of an ejection malfunction type of the ejection malfunction nozzle, the correction processing unit sets the ejection malfunction nozzle as a non-ejection nozzle (paragraphs [0010], and [0023]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to add Yamanobe’s method to Hattori’s method as an addition of the known practice in the art of turning off and compensating for malfunctioning nozzles in order to improve print quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamamoto et al. (US-20110032293-A1) and Jung et al. (US 20070153035 A1) are cited as having apparatuses similar to the disclosed 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 Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853