DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the forecasted defect” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the selected print settings” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 19 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. The claims recite “forecasting a potential defect” but then also recite “the defect” and “the forecasted defect.” It is assumed all of the claimed defects are intended to refer to the same thing, but the claims require clarification. Consistency is required throughout all claims.
Further, the language “potential defect” itself could mean any number of things because a potential defect could be no defect at all. Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claims 7 and 19, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claims 15 and 21 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. The claims recite “prior purge history, “prior purge results” and “behavior over time” but none of these terms have been defined in any way. Purge of what? Behavior of what?
Clarification 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) 7-10, 15, 17, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers et al. (2008/0117249) in view of Nishikawa (2020/0101717).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Childers teaches a system and method for use with an associated printhead of a printer, comprising:
a non-transitory storage device having stored thereon instructions for:
acquiring data from a drop sensor monitoring nozzles on the associated printhead ([0028]); and
using the data, generating a map representing the nozzles on the associated printhead ([0028], note that the test pattern and misfiring nozzles are mapped).
Childers does not teach employing artificial intelligence to forecast a potential defect in images to be rendered by the printhead, wherein the forecasted defect comprises dot loss in a print job based on the spatial relationship between predicted missing nozzles and queued image data, and selectively initiating a maintenance to be performed on an associated printhead based on the forecasted defect, the associated printhead being in communication with at least one hardware processor configured to execute the instructions. Nishikawa teaches this (Nishikawa, [0005], fig. 6, Note that the learning model predicts when discharge failures for certain nozzles will occur, and maintenance timing is determined on that basis. Note that “dot loss” is being taken to be the same as predicting a specific nozzle that will need maintenance at a certain time, and if maintenance is not executed, there will be a dot loss in a next print job. Note that “based on the spatial relationship between predicted missing nozzles and queued image data” is broad. Examiner maintains that the limitation is met simply by the fact that the system knowns when a particular nozzle will be in a failure state, and that nozzle necessarily corresponds with certain pixels in any data to be printed after that nozzle is predicted to be in a state of failure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the AI technique disclosed by Nishikawa to the printer disclosed by Childers because doing so would allow for more thorough and predictive evaluation of nozzle health, thereby allowing for more precise timing of maintenance procedures.
Regarding claim 8, Childers in view of Nishikawa teaches the system of claim 7 wherein the drop sensor is in communication with the printer and indicates whether ink is being propelled from a nozzle of the associated printhead (Childers, [0028], Note that the droplet sensor detects this).
Regarding claim 9, Childers in view of Nishikawa teaches the system of claim 8, further comprising a controller that activates the printer to generate an image that employs every nozzle of the associated printhead, wherein the non-transitory storage device has stored thereon instructions for: scanning the image with an image sensor, which captures an electronic copy of the printed image; processing the scanned image to detect any pixel locations where ink is absent; using these locations to identify nozzles that were assigned to print the pixels, wherein the identified nozzles are determined to be missing nozzles (Childers, [0028], Note that the test pattern is scanned with an image sensor to capture a copy, and that image is analyzed to detect defective nozzles).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Childers in view of Nishikawa teaches the system and method of claims 9 and 19, respectively, wherein the non-transitory storage device has stored thereon instructions for:
a machine learning component acquiring and analyzing the image and drop data to determine whether any defects align with the missing nozzles or with misdirected nozzles; determining if the associated printhead is misaligned; in response to a determined misalignment, the controller initiates a corrective routine, wherein the corrective routine includes at least one of activating an automatic adjustment of the associated printhead position at the printer, transmit an error message or notice to a graphical user interface at the printer or a user device, determine whether the defect is caused by a density of the ink (Childers, [0028], Note that the printheads are realigned to compensation for misfiring nozzles. Note that, upon combination of Nishikawa, such realignment could be executed predictively as opposed to reactively).
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Childers in view of Nishikawa teaches the system and methods of claims 7 and 20, respectively, wherein the machine learning component classifies nozzles as chronic, temporary, or recoverable based on prior purge results and behavior over time (Childers, [0028], Nishikawa, [0005])
Regarding claim 17, Childers in view of Nishikawa teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the forecasted defect is correlated with specific print modes or media types selected for a queued print job (Childers, Note that a “normal print mode” is implied. Note that the claim has not defined any print modes or media types or how a single forecasted potential defect would be correlated to multiple print modes or media types).
Regarding claims 18 and 22, Childers in view of Nishikawa teaches the system and method of claims 7 and 21, respectively, wherein the machine learning component suppresses maintenance actions for forecasted defects that are not predicted to cause perceptible degradation under the selected printer settings (Note that the claimed defect is being assumed to be the same potential defect recited in the independent claim, and thus if the potential defect is not a defect, it would be imperceptible).
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Nishikawa as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yamanobe (2006/0187254).
Regarding claim 11, Childers in view of Nishikawa teaches the system of claim 7. Childers in view of Nishikawa does not teach wherein the non-transitory storage device has stored thereon instructions for: determining an ink density profile by acquiring an ink density measurement from a densitometer in communication with the system, wherein the densitometer checks the image at one point; applying the ink density profile to a machine learning component to determine if a correction is desired based on ink usage or a forecasted ink usage; in response to a correction being needed, initiating a corrective routine, wherein the corrective routine includes automatically adjusting one or more settings for ink density, transmitting an error message or notice to a graphical user interface at the printer or a user device. Yamanobe teaches this (Yamanobe, [0125], [0130], [0181]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the technique disclosed by Yamanobe to the device of Childers in view of Nishikawa because doing so would allow for prevention of uneven density in printing in the case of low ink levels.
Upon combination of Yamanobe with Childers in view of Nishikawa, the resultant device would meet the limitation:
in response to a correction not being needed, activating a purge for a predetermined region of the associated printhead, wherein the timing of the purge is based on historical duty cycle data so that it is performed during normally idle periods and wherein there is a separate duty cycle used for print periods (Nishikawa, [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Childers in view of Nishikawa and Yamanobe teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the machine learning component generates an array using the missing nozzle information, the array mapping where the missing nozzles appear on a print face of the associated printhead (Childers, [0028], Note that arrays of nozzle row positions and nozzle column positions must necessarily be generated to store positions of properly firing and misfiring nozzles on the nozzle surface).
Regarding claim 13, Childers in view of Nishikawa and Yamanobe teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the machine learning component determines if there is a pattern in the array and the array is used to determine how a defect may appear in a printed output using the associated printhead (Childers, [0028], Nishikawa, [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Childers in view of Nishikawa and Yamanobe teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the non-transitory storage device has stored thereon instructions for adjusting forecast accuracy based on historical usage data and past nozzle recovery behavior (Note that the device of the prior art necessarily knows when a nozzle has been used, i.e., historical usage data, and when the nozzle has previously been recovered, i.e., past recovery behavior, and thus the accuracy of the forecast is necessarily adjusted according to these parameters).
Claim(s) 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers in view of Nishikawa as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (2021/0178752).
Regarding claims 16 and 24, Johnson teaches the claimed language (Johnson, see fig. 3, [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the technique disclosed by Johnson to the system disclosed by Childers in view of Nishikawa because doing so would allow for prevention of unnecessary printhead maintenance when a user only needed a low-quality print.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the system, but the amendments fail 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights