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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I(A) and Species II(A) in the reply filed on 25 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “no serious burden is present in examining the remaining claims”. This is not found persuasive because the Species in each group contains subject matter that is not shared by the others, requiring a separate search. Also, the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. For example, in Group I, among other differences, the determination threshold in one species is corrected by changing the determination threshold based on the result of the collation a plurality of times, while in other species it’s corrected by collating the determination results using a plurality of different types of determination thresholds a plurality of times. In Group II, among other differences, the ink ejection result of each of the nozzles in one species corresponds to information obtained by reading an image formed by ink ejection from each of the nozzles with an image reading device, while in other species it corresponds to information indicating ejection of ink from each of the nozzles and obtained by detection of interruption of light by a laser optical sensor.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Please note that, even though Applicant indicated that Claims 1-10 and 13-20 correspond to the elected Species, Claims 4 and 14-15 correspond to non-elected species in Group I and are therefore withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 May 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the image formed by ink ejection that is a chart image (as recited in claim 10) and an ink ejection device comprising the ink ejection inspection device (as recited in claim 18 – please note that the drawings show the ink ejection device 20 and the ink ejection inspection device 40 being two separate components (i.e. the ink ejection device does not include the ink ejection inspection device among its components)] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-3, 5-10, 13, and 16-20 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 16-17 recite the limitation "a determination threshold set for each of the nozzles" in line 5-6, making the claims indefinite since it is unclear if the threshold is the same for each nozzle (i.e. the same reference value for all the nozzles), or if it’s different for each nozzle. Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 13, and 18-20 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected the same way.
Additionally, Claim 5 recites the limitation "the determination thresholds" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a determination threshold set for each of the nozzle” but if the determination threshold is the same for all of the nozzles, then there would be no “thresholds”. Claims 6-10 depend on claim 5 and are therefore rejected the same way.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (JP 2012-213966 – hereinafter Tanaka.)
Regarding claim 1,
Tanaka discloses an ink ejection inspection device for inspecting a state of ejection of ink from a plurality of nozzles [23 in figs. 2-4] provided in an ink ejection device [24 in figs. 2-4 / discharge means U1 in fig. 4; paragraph 0027],
the ink ejection inspection device comprising a hardware processor [70 in fig. 2] that determines the state of ejection of ink from each of the nozzles by comparing a feature value indicated by a waveform of residual vibration obtained by applying a voltage to each of the nozzles [paragraphs 0007-0008; after the voltage is applied, the driving actuator continues to vibrate (residual vibration), producing a voltage waveform (a change in electrical potential)] with a determination threshold set for each of the nozzles [paragraphs 0009-0010, 0020-0023, 0083.]
Regarding claim 2,
Tanaka further discloses wherein the hardware processor holds the determination threshold set for each of the nozzles [paragraph 0043, the controller 70 performs the nozzle unit determination process (…) and stores the corresponding information in a memory such as a RAM74.”]
Regarding claim 3,
Tanaka further discloses wherein each of the nozzles is provided with a piezoelectric element [48 in fig. 3] that deforms in accordance with the applied voltage [paragraph 0027.]
Regarding claim 5,
Tanaka further discloses wherein the hardware processor sets the determination thresholds based on an ink ejection result of each of the nozzles [paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0019-0021.]
Regarding claim 6,
Tanaka further discloses wherein the hardware processor corrects the determination threshold set for each of the nozzles based on the ink ejection result of each of the nozzles [paragraphs 0010-0011 and 0033-0034.]
Regarding claim 7,
Tanaka further discloses wherein the hardware processor determines the state of ejection of ink from each of the nozzles based on the ink ejection result of each of the nozzles, collates, for each of the nozzles, a determination result obtained by comparison between the feature value and the determination threshold with a determination result based on the ink ejection result, and corrects the determination threshold for each of the nozzles based on a result of the collation [paragraphs 0010-0015 and 0033-0034.]
Regarding claim 8,
Tanaka further discloses wherein the hardware processor corrects a determination threshold for a non-matching nozzle for which a determination result obtained by comparison between the feature value and the determination threshold does not match a determination result based on the ink ejection result, among the determination thresholds [paragraphs 0010-0015, 0033-0034, and 0058.]
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
The steps of method claim 16 – and corresponding non-transitory recording medium storing a computer-readable ink ejection inspection program for causing a computer to perform method steps, as recited in claim 17 – are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Regarding claim 18,
Tanaka further discloses an ink ejection device [U1 in fig. 4] comprising the ink ejection inspection device according to claim 1 [see Rejection above; also note that paragraph 0035 recites “The controller 70 constitutes a part of the discharge means U1 and the determination means U3.”]
Regarding claim 19,
Tanaka further discloses an image forming apparatus [20 in fig. 2] comprising: the ink ejection device according to claim 18 [see Rejection above]; and
a medium conveyance device [31 in fig. 2] that conveys a recording medium M1 in fig. 2], on which an image is formed by ink ejection by the ink ejection device, in a predetermined conveyance direction with respect to the ink ejection device [paragraph 0025.]
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arazaki (US 2023/0278330.)
Regarding claim 1,
Arazaki discloses an ink ejection inspection device for inspecting a state of ejection of ink from a plurality of nozzles [21 in fig. 2] provided in an ink ejection device [19 in figs. 1-2; paragraph 0030],
the ink ejection inspection device comprising a hardware processor [11a in fig. 1] that determines the state of ejection of ink from each of the nozzles by comparing a feature value indicated by a waveform of residual vibration obtained by applying a voltage to each of the nozzles with a determination threshold set for each of the nozzles [paragraphs 0031-0032; as written, the threshold may be the same for each nozzle.]
Regarding claim 2,
Arazaki further discloses wherein the hardware processor holds the determination threshold set for each of the nozzles [last sentence of paragraph 0032.]
Regarding claim 3,
Arazaki further discloses wherein each of the nozzles is provided with a piezoelectric element [not shown but mentioned in paragraph 0032] that deforms in accordance with the applied voltage [paragraph 0032.]
Regarding claim 5,
Arazaki further discloses wherein the hardware processor sets the determination thresholds based on an ink ejection result of each of the nozzles [paragraphs 0031-0032; “each nozzle 21 is caused to perform an ink ejection operation, and whether a dot is actually ejected from each nozzle 21 is detected by an optical sensor that is the defective nozzle detector 20” (paragraph 0031); also, see 112 Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 9,
Arazaki further discloses wherein the ink ejection result of each of the nozzles corresponds to information obtained by reading an image formed by ink ejection from each of the nozzles with an image reading device [20 in fig. 1; paragraph 0031.]
Regarding claim 10,
Arazaki further discloses wherein the image is a chart image [paragraph 0031; if all the nozzles perform ink ejection, it is implicit and well-known that the resulting image may be a block/grid/chart.]
Regarding claim 13,
Arazaki further discloses wherein each of the determination thresholds is a value set for at least one of an amplitude [paragraph 0032], a period, a bias level, an attenuation rate, and a phase of the waveform [please note that only one option is needed for the limitation to be met as written.]
Regarding claims 16 and 17,
The steps of method claim 16 – and corresponding non-transitory recording medium storing a computer-readable ink ejection inspection program for causing a computer to perform method steps, as recited in claim 17 – are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Regarding claim 18,
Arazaki further discloses an ink ejection device [as seen in fig. 1] comprising the ink ejection inspection device according to claim 1 [see Rejection above.]
Regarding claim 19,
Arazaki further discloses an image forming apparatus [10 in fig. 1] comprising: the ink ejection device according to claim 18 [see Rejection above]; and
a medium conveyance device [17 in fig. 1] that conveys a recording medium [30 in fig. 2], on which an image is formed by ink ejection by the ink ejection device [19 in figs. 1-2], in a predetermined conveyance direction with respect to the ink ejection device [paragraph 0024.]
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arazaki in view of Tanaka.
Regarding claim 20,
Arazaki discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above and further teaches the image forming apparatus further comprising an image reader [20 in fig. 1; paragraph 0031] that is arranged on a downstream side in the conveyance direction with respect to the ink ejection device and reads the image formed on the recording medium [paragraph 0082], wherein
the hardware processor of the ink ejection inspection device included in the ink ejection device determines the state of ejection of ink from each of the nozzles of the ink ejection device based on the image read by the image reader [paragraphs 0030-0032], but fails to expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor of the ink ejection inspection device corrects, for each of the nozzles, the determination threshold for determining the state of ejection of ink from each of the nozzles based on a determination result obtained by comparison between the feature value and the determination threshold and a determination result based on the ink ejection result.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses a liquid ejection apparatus [20 in fig. 2] that includes an ejection unit inspection device for inspecting a state of ejection of ink from a plurality of nozzles [23 in figs. 2-4] provided in an ink ejection device [24 in figs. 2-4], the ink ejection inspection device comprising a hardware processor [70 in fig. 2] that determines the state of ejection of ink from each of the nozzles by comparing a feature value obtained by applying a voltage to each of the nozzles with a determination threshold set for each of the nozzles [paragraphs 0009-0010, 0020-0023, 0083],
wherein the hardware processor of the ink ejection inspection device corrects, for each of the nozzles, the determination threshold for determining the state of ejection of ink from each of the nozzles based on a determination result obtained by comparison between the feature value and the determination threshold and a determination result based on the ink ejection result [paragraphs 0010-0015, 0033-0034, and 0058.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Arazaki invention to include means for correcting, for each of the nozzles, the determination threshold based on a determination result obtained by comparison between the feature value and the determination threshold and a determination result based on the ink ejection result as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of improving the determination accuracy of a nozzle state [paragraph 0006.]
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