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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu et al. (JP 7006070 B2) in view of Nakatsuji et al. (US 20240100856 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Manabu teaches an image forming apparatus (Figure 1 displays an “image forming apparatus 10” described in paragraph [0037].), comprising:
a recording head (Figure 1 displays the “recording heads 50Y, 50M, 50C, and 50K” described in paragraph [0040].) configured to eject ink corresponding to an image to be printed (Paragraph [0005] / [0041] describes ink being ejected from the recording heads to form an image.), using nozzles (Figure 2 displays the “nozzle groups 54” provided with a “plurality of nozzles 52” described in paragraph [0041].);
a control unit (Figure 3 displays a “CPU 80” described in paragraph [0044].) configured
(d) to determine nozzles corresponding to the image to be printed, correspondingly to a position of a print sheet, and (e) to cause the recording head to eject ink from the nozzles (Paragraphs [0036], [0041] and [0057]-[0060] describe correcting an image information so as to discharge a corrected drop to a position adjacent to the non-discharge);
a correction processing unit configured to detect an ejection malfunction nozzle and perform a correction process corresponding to the ejection malfunction nozzles (Paragraph [0044] describes how the “CPU 80” controls the overall operation of the “image forming apparatus 10”. Paragraph [0056] further describes how the “CPU 80” is used to detect if there is a non-ejection nozzle and if the correction process is needed);
wherein when a nozzle that ejects an ink droplet at a dot position adjacent to a dot position that the ejection malfunction nozzle should eject an ink droplet at is referred to as a primary adjacent nozzle (Figure 2 “nozzle group 54” includes a “pre-strike nozzle group 54A” as the first nozzle group) and
a nozzle that ejects an ink droplet at a dot position adjacent to a dot position that the primary adjacent nozzle should eject an ink droplet at is referred to as a secondary adjacent nozzle (Figure 2 “nozzle group 54” includes a “post-launch nozzle group 54B”),
the correction processing unit (a) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle to perform ink ejection with a first ink ejection amount if ink ejection of the primary adjacent nozzle is performed earlier than ink ejection of the secondary adjacent nozzle and (b) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle to perform ink ejection with a second ink ejection amount if ink ejection of the primary adjacent nozzle is performed later than ink ejection of the secondary adjacent nozzle (Paragraph [0005] describes how the correction drop amount of the correction nozzle is changed by the control unit depending on the ejection order, or timing.); and
the second ink ejection amount is smaller than the first ink ejection amount. (Paragraphs [0016] and [0018] describe how the correction amount when the position of the defective nozzle in the head is the first nozzle group is greater than, or “>”, the second nozzle group.)
Manabu fails to teach the control unit also configured (a) to detect positions of both side edges of a print sheet, (b) to determine an actual sheet center position based on the detected positions, (c) to adjust a depicting position of the image to be printed in a primary scanning direction based on a difference between a reference center position and the actual sheet center position, (d) to determine nozzles corresponding to the image to be printed, correspondingly to the adjusted depicting position and a position of a print sheet.
However, Nakatsuji teaches the control unit also configured (a) to detect positions of both side edges of a print sheet (Paragraph [0033] describes how the “image forming apparatus 10” includes a “line sensor 31” that is an optical senser that detects the positions of both edges of the “print sheet”.), (b) to determine an actual sheet center position based on the detected positions (Paragraph [0051] describes how the ”control portion 81” executes a “center identification processing” that identifies the “center actual position” based on both edges that were detected by the “line sensor 31”.), (c) to adjust a depicting position of the image to be printed in a primary scanning direction based on a difference between a reference center position and the actual sheet center position (Paragraph [0053] describes how the “control portion 81” changes the drawing position of the image to be printed by a position difference that is calculated by a difference between a reference center position and the actual center position.), (d) to determine nozzles corresponding to the image to be printed, correspondingly to the adjusted depicting position and a position of a print sheet (Paragraphs [0054]-[0055] describes how the “control portion 81” determines one or more “ejection nozzles” to be used for printing in accordance with the positional difference.).
Manabu and Nakatsuji are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image forming apparatus taught by Manabu to also apply the control unit also configured (a) to detect positions of both side edges of a print sheet, (b) to determine an actual sheet center position based on the detected positions, (c) to adjust a depicting position of the image to be printed in a primary scanning direction based on a difference between a reference center position and the actual sheet center position, (d) to determine nozzles corresponding to the image to be printed, correspondingly to the adjusted depicting position and a position of a print sheet taught by Nakatsuji. This would have been done for the purpose of identifying the center position of the print sheet and adjusting accordingly so the printed image is arranged in the center (Nakatsuji, paragraphs [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Manabu and Nakatsuji teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Manabu further discloses:
wherein the correction processing unit determines an ejection malfunction type of the ejection malfunction nozzle; and if the ejection malfunction type is non ejection (Paragraph [0056] describes how the “CPU 80” is used to detect if there is a non-ejection nozzle and if the correction process is needed.),
an ink ejection amount of the primary adjacent nozzle when ink ejection of the primary adjacent nozzle is performed later than ink ejection of the secondary adjacent nozzle is larger than an ink ejection amount of the primary adjacent nozzle when ink ejection of the primary adjacent nozzle is performed earlier than ink ejection of the secondary adjacent nozzle (Paragraph [0005] describes how the correction drop amount is changed by the control unit depending on the ejection order.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Manabu and Nakatsuji teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Manabu further discloses:
wherein the correction processing unit determines whether the secondary adjacent nozzle should perform ink ejection or not (Paragraph [0058] describes how the “CPU 80” determines whether or not the “post-striking nozzle group 54B” is needed or not.); and
if the secondary adjacent nozzle should not perform ink ejection, causes the primary adjacent nozzle to perform ink ejection with a constant ink ejection amount regardless of an ink ejection order of the primary adjacent nozzle and the secondary adjacent nozzle (Paragraph [0058]-[0060] step 108 describes how the printing of the image is continued).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Manabu et al. (JP 7006070 B2) in view of Nakatsuji et al. (US 20240100856 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueshima (US 20130215178 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Manabu and Nakatsuji teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, Manabu further discloses wherein the correction processing unit determines an ejection malfunction type of the ejection malfunction nozzle (Paragraph [0056] further describes how the “CPU 80” is used to detect if there is a non-ejection nozzle and if the correction process is needed.).
Modified Manabu fails to teach if the ejection malfunction type is ejection deviation and ink ejection of the primary adjacent nozzle is performed later than ink ejection of the secondary adjacent nozzle, the correction processing unit (a) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle in a direction of ejection deviation to perform ink ejection with the first ink ejection amount and (b) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle in opposite to a direction of ejection deviation to perform ink ejection with the second ink ejection amount.
However, Ueshima teaches if the ejection malfunction type is ejection deviation (Paragraph [0010] describes an “abnormal nozzle detection device” that detects “deflecting nozzles” that causes deviation errors.) and ink ejection of the primary adjacent nozzle is performed later than ink ejection of the secondary adjacent nozzle (Paragraph [0005] describes how the order of the nozzle groups are detected.), the correction processing unit (a) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle in a direction of ejection deviation to perform ink ejection with the first ink ejection amount and (b) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle in opposite to a direction of ejection deviation to perform ink ejection with the second ink ejection amount (Paragraph [0013] describes a “displacement amount determining device” which determines the displacement landing position the malfunctioning nozzle ejects a droplet, which allows the apparatus to identify the direction of the ejection deviation. Paragraph [0014] further describes how the droplet volume correction device modifies the amount of the droplet volume based on the displacement and paragraph [0061] also discloses how the volume, or “output density”, of the nozzles positioned on the opposite side from the malfunctioning nozzle may also be changed.)
Modified Manabu and Ueshima are considered analogous to the art because they are in the same field involving an image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image forming apparatus taught by Manabu so that if the ejection malfunction type is ejection deviation and ink ejection of the primary adjacent nozzle is performed later than ink ejection of the secondary adjacent nozzle, the correction processing unit (a) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle in a direction of
ejection deviation to perform ink ejection with the first ink ejection amount and (b) causes the secondary adjacent nozzle in opposite to a direction of ejection deviation to perform ink ejection with the second ink ejection amount taught by Ueshima. This would have been done so that image non-informalities caused by ejection abnormality nozzles, such as deflecting nozzles, can be corrected (Ueshima, paragraph [0009]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA DEPHENIA QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-6375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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) 272-5960. 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.
/N.D.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights