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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “neither Tanaka nor Arazaki disclose or suggest at least these elements of amended claims 1, 16 and 17, and therefore cannot anticipate the claims”, please note that, in the Tanaka reference, paragraph 0059 recites “the upper limit Vtyp is first set to the reference level Vref to determine the state of each nozzle, the lower limit Vlow is then set to the reference level Vref to determine the state of each nozzle as necessary, and the reference levels Vref are further set in the order of Vr1,Vr3,Vr5 (0<Vlow<Vr1<Vr3<Vr5<Vtyp) to determine the state of each nozzle as necessary”, and paragraph 0073 recites “the nozzle inspection is performed by changing the thresholds Vref in the order of the upper limit value Vtyp, 0.9Vtyp, 0.8Vtyp, … for each designated nozzle” (emphasis added), meeting the added limitation as written.
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 plurality of determination thresholds [paragraphs 0009-0010, 0020-0023, 0059, 0073, and 0083], each determination threshold of the plurality of determination thresholds corresponding to a respective nozzle of the plurality of nozzles, each determination threshold being individually set for each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles [paragraph 0059 recites “the upper limit Vtyp is first set to the reference level Vref to determine the state of each nozzle, the lower limit Vlow is then set to the reference level Vref to determine the state of each nozzle as necessary, and the reference levels Vref are further set in the order of Vr1,Vr3,Vr5 (0<Vlow<Vr1<Vr3<Vr5<Vtyp) to determine the state of each nozzle as necessary”, and paragraph 0073 recites “the nozzle inspection is performed by changing the thresholds Vref in the order of the upper limit value Vtyp, 0.9Vtyp, 0.8Vtyp, … for each designated nozzle” (emphasis added); also, please note that in page 7 of the Remarks filed on 26 June 2026, Applicant stated that “the thresholds could be either the same or different.”]
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 plurality of 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 system, comprising:
an ink ejection device [U1 in fig. 4]; and
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 [para 0025.]
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.
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Arazaki (US 2023/0278330.)
Regarding claim 9,
Tanaka discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above and further teaches that the printing apparatus may be a multifunction machine including a colorimeter [paragraph 0088], but fails to expressly disclose 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.
However, in the same field of invention, 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; please note that the threshold may be the same for each nozzle],
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”]
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.]
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 Tanaka invention to include an image reading device for reading an image formed by ink ejection from each of the nozzles as taught by Arazaki for the purpose of being able to automatically check the print quality of the formed image in a faster and more accurate manner than an operator.
Regarding claim 10,
In the obvious combination, 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,
In the obvious combination, 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 claim 20,
In the obvious combination, Arazaki discloses 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], whereas Tanaka further discloses 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 0009-0015, 0020-0023, 0033-0034, 0058, and 0083.]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oikawa et al. (US 2019/0299590) discloses a printing apparatus that uses a printhead including a circuit configured to inspect an ink discharge status of a selected nozzle by changing a threshold value for judging a detection result, wherein a threshold of a plurality of thresholds corresponds to a selected nozzle of the plurality of nozzles, each threshold being individually set for each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles [paragraphs 0086-0095; as seen in fig. 7.]
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.
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
Prosecution Insights