Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/661,682

LIQUID JETTING DEVICE, JETTING STATE EVALUATION METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF PRINT SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 12, 2024
Examiner
SHENDEROV, ALEXANDER D
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allow Rate
790 granted / 875 resolved
+22.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
890
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 875 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 6/7/24, the requirements 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) are met. Furthermore, the instant Application claims benefit as a continuation of the prior application PCT/JP2022/039846 under 35 U.S.C. 119e, 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c). The requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 are met to the extent defined in MPEP 201.08, and therefore the instant Application receives the benefit to the filing date of 3/1/2016. Information Disclosure Statement The references cited on a Form PTO 1449 have been considered. Specification The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9 and 12-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konno (U.S. 2007/0064077). Konno discloses the following claimed limitations: Regarding independent Claim 1, a liquid jetting device (10, §§0052-0171 and Figs. 1, 9) comprising: a liquid jetting head (11, §0052 and Fig. 1) that jets a metal complex ink (§0101); a relative moving mechanism (22, §0060 and Fig. 1) that relatively moves the liquid jetting head and a substrate (16, §0060 and Fig. 1); an exposure machine (26, 28, §§0052, 0135 and Fig. 1) that exposes the metal complex ink applied on the substrate; and at least one processor (102, 130, 133, 134, §0125 and Fig. 9), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: form a first pattern on the substrate by causing the metal complex ink to be jetted from the liquid jetting head (§0012); acquire a reading result obtained by reading the first pattern using an observation device after exposing the first pattern using the exposure machine (§§0016-0023, 0070-0072); and evaluate a jetting state of the liquid jetting head from the reading result (§§0016-0023, 0070-0072). Regarding Claim 2, wherein the first pattern is a test pattern for inspecting the jetting state of the liquid jetting head (§§0016-0023, 0070-0072, 0159-0162). Regarding Claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: form a second pattern different from the first pattern by causing the metal complex ink to be jetted from the liquid jetting head (e.g. §0160). Regarding Claim 6, wherein the second pattern is a user pattern that is a pattern required for printing by a user (e.g. §0160 and Fig. 10; please note that the print job that requires for printing as disclosed in §0160 is inherently required by a user). Regarding Claim 12, wherein the second pattern is formed on the same substrate as the substrate on which the first pattern is formed (16, §0060 and Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 13, wherein the first pattern is formed in a case of the relative movement before formation of the second pattern (§0160 and Fig. 10). Regarding Claim 14, wherein the first pattern is formed in a region of the substrate, which is excised in a case of cutting the substrate into individual pieces (§0060 and Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 15, wherein a first substrate that is the substrate on which the first pattern is formed and a second substrate on which the second pattern is formed are individual substrates, respectively (§0060 and Fig. 1). Regarding Claim 22, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform at least one of control of the liquid jetting head or presenting of information based on an evaluation result of the jetting state (e.g. §0149). Regarding Claim 23, wherein the exposure machine generates ultraviolet light (§0069; please note that halogen lamps inherently generate ultraviolet light). Regarding independent Claim 24, a jetting state evaluation method comprising: relatively moving a liquid jetting head and a substrate (§0060 and Fig. 1); forming a first pattern on the substrate by jetting a metal complex ink from the liquid jetting head and applying the metal complex ink to the substrate (§§0012, 0052, 0101 and Fig. 1); exposing the first pattern formed on the substrate (§§0052, 0135 and Fig. 1); reading the first pattern using an observation device after exposing the first pattern (§§0016-0023, 0070-0072); and acquiring a reading result of the first pattern and evaluating a jetting state of the liquid jetting head from the reading result by at least one processor (24, §§0016-0023, 0070-0072). Regarding independent Claim 25, an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor (102, 130, 133, 134, §§0125-0140 and Fig. 9); and at least one memory (106, §0130 and Fig. 9) that stores a command for executing the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire a reading result obtained by reading a first pattern formed on a substrate by applying a metal complex ink jetted from a liquid jetting head using an observation device after exposing the first pattern (§§0016-0023, 0052, 0070-0072, 0135); and evaluate a jetting state of the liquid jetting head from the reading result (§§0016-0023, 0070-0072). Regarding independent Claim 26, a manufacturing method of a print substrate comprising: relatively moving a liquid jetting head and a print substrate (§0060 and Fig. 1); forming a first pattern on the print substrate by jetting a metal complex ink from the liquid jetting head and applying the metal complex ink to the print substrate (§§0012, 0052, 0101 and Fig. 1); exposing the metal complex ink applied to the print substrate (§§0052, 0135 and Fig. 1); reading the first pattern using an observation device after exposing the first pattern (§§0016-0023, 0070-0072); acquiring a reading result of the first pattern and evaluating a jetting state of the liquid jetting head from the reading result by at least one processor (§§0016-0023, 0070-0072); performing at least one of control of the liquid jetting head or presenting of information based on an evaluation result of the jetting state by the at least one processor (e.g. §0149); and forming a second pattern different from the first pattern on the print substrate by jetting the metal complex ink from the liquid jetting head and applying the metal complex ink to the print substrate (e.g. §0160). Konno does not disclose the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claim 7, wherein an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine is larger than an exposure amount of the second pattern by the exposure machine. However, when the first pattern has been exposed by both determination light source 26 and heating and drying unit 28 and the second pattern is only exposed by determination light source 26, then an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine is inherently larger than an exposure amount of the second pattern at such time. Regarding Claim 8, wherein exposure of the second pattern by the exposure machine is an exposure amount that is 1/5 of an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine or less. However, when the first pattern has been completely exposed by both determination light source 26 and heating and drying unit 28 and the second pattern is only partially exposed by one or both of determination light source 26 and heating and drying unit 28, then is 1/5 of an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine or less up to such time as it is no longer the case. Regarding Claim 9, wherein exposure of the second pattern by the exposure machine is an exposure amount to an extent that spread of the metal complex ink on the substrate is capable of being suppressed. However, “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, see MPEP 2114 II. Regarding Claim 16, wherein a b* value representing chromaticity of a metal in a state where the metal is precipitated by exposing the metal complex ink is |b*| < 20. However, “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, see MPEP 2114 II. Regarding Claim 17, wherein an a* value representing chromaticity of a metal in a state where the metal is precipitated by exposing the metal complex ink is |a*| < 20. However, “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, see MPEP 2114 II. Regarding Claim 18, wherein an L* value representing brightness of a metal in a state where the metal is precipitated by exposing the metal complex ink is 40 or more. However, “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, see MPEP 2114 II. Regarding Claim 19, wherein a difference in an L* value representing brightness of each of a metal in a state where the metal is precipitated by exposing the metal complex ink and the substrate is 10 or more. However, “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, see MPEP 2114 II. Regarding Claim 20, wherein an L* value representing brightness of the substrate is 30 or less. However, “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, see MPEP 2114 II. Regarding Claim 21, wherein reflectivity of a metal in a state where the metal is precipitated by exposing the metal complex ink is 40% or more in a visible light range. However, “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus”, see MPEP 2114 II. 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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno (U.S. 2007/0064077) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kagose et al. (U.S. 2012/0113201 A1). Konno discloses the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claims 3-4, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which these Claims depend). Konno does not disclose the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claim 3, wherein an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine is less than 500 mJ/cm2. Regarding Claim 4, wherein an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine is 300 mJ/cm2 or less. Kagose et al. disclose the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claim 3, wherein an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine is less than 500 mJ/cm2 (§0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the exposure amount of Kagose et al. to the liquid jetting device of Konno to ensure adequate curing. Regarding Claim 4, wherein an exposure amount of the first pattern by the exposure machine is 300 mJ/cm2 or less (§0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the exposure amount of Kagose et al. to the liquid jetting device of Konno to ensure adequate curing. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno (U.S. 2007/0064077). Konno discloses the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claims 10-11, all limitations of Claim 5 (from which these Claims depend); wherein the exposure machine includes a first exposure machine and a second exposure machine (26 and 28, respectively, §§0052, 0135 and Fig. 1). Konno does not disclose the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claim 10, wherein an exposure amount of the second pattern by the exposure machine is 30 mJ/cm2 or more and 100 mJ/cm2 or less. Regarding Claim 11, wherein the first exposure machine maintains the same output state and exposes both the first pattern and the second pattern, and the second exposure machine changes the output state and exposes only the first pattern among the first pattern and the second pattern. Kagose et al. disclose the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claim 10, wherein an exposure amount of the second pattern by the exposure machine is 30 mJ/cm2 or more and 100 mJ/cm2 or less (AAA, §0227; please see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the exposure amount of Kagose et al. to the liquid jetting device of Konno to avoid overexposure in case the ink film to be cured is thin. Kagose et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations: Regarding Claim 11, wherein the first exposure machine maintains the same output state and exposes both the first pattern and the second pattern, and the second exposure machine changes the output state and exposes only the first pattern among the first pattern and the second pattern. However, Kagose et al. disclose that ink films of different thicknesses require different exposure amounts (§§0128, 0227 and Tables 6-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the changing output state of a part of the exposure machine Kagose et al. to the liquid jetting device of Konno to avoid overexposure in case the ink film to be cured is thin while providing adequate curing in case said film is thick. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV whose telephone number is (571)270-7049. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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 Rodrigues 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. /ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV/Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 12, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600143
CARTRIDGE AND PRINTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594776
ROLLED PAPER PRINTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594766
PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583227
LIQUID CARTRIDGE HAVING STRUCTURE FOR SUPPRESSING LEAKAGE OF LIQUID DEPOSITED ON SEAL AND CAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583219
DRIVE UNIT, LIQUID EJECTING HEAD UNIT, AND LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
90%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+6.0%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 875 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month