DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamura et al. (8,556,362) in view of Askeland et al. (6,259,463).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-17, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches a printing apparatus, method and non-transitory computer storage medium configured to eject ink to form an image, comprising:
an ejection head having:
first nozzles (fig. 9A, nozzles corresponding to top half of head 201) configured to eject ink to form a first base layer (fig. 9A, any layer formed by first nozzles) on a printing medium; and
second nozzles (fig. 9A, nozzles corresponding to bottom half of head 201) configured to eject ink to form a second base layer (fig. 9A, any layer formed by second nozzles) different from the first base layer on the printing medium; and
a controller configured to perform:
a first printing based on first image data, the first image data being data to form the first base layer, the first image data including data representing a first dot density per one pass (fig. 9A, see 6th pass);
a second printing based on second image data, the second image data being data to form the second base layer, the second image data including data representing a second dot density per one pass (see fig. 9A, note that the dot density in the 3rd scan); and
increasing an ink amount when the second printing is performed such that the ink amount is increased compared to an ink amount
Nagamura does not teach increasing an ink amount per dot during the second printing compared with the first printing and wherein dot density in the second printing is lower than that in the first. Askeland teaches increasing an ink amount per dot during a multidrop printing as compared with a multipass printing (Askeland, see fig. 18, Note quad dot of multidrop and single, smaller drops during multipass printing. Further, note that dot density is lower in the multidrop printing than it is in the multipass printing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the droplet volume scheme disclosed by Askeland to the device of Nagamura because doing so would allow for the smallest possible difference between end images during multidrop printing and multipass printing.
Applying Askeland’s approach to Nagamura, because Nagamura’s second printing uses single pass, multidrop printing, the drops in the second printing would be larger than those in the first printing, and the print density in the second printing would be lower than that in the first.
Regarding claim 2, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller causes the second nozzles to perform printing such thatm, the dot density per one pass is lower than the dot density per one pass when
Regarding claim 3, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to cause the ejection head to eject ink droplets such that landing positions of the ink droplets ejected later respectively overlap the landing positions of the ink droplets ejected previously (Nagamura, see fig. 9A, note that multi-pass printing is performed), and wherein a ratio of the number of overlapping ejections to the total number of ejections by the second nozzles when the ink amount per dot is increased is higher than a ratio of the number of overlapping ejections to the total number of ejections by the first nozzles when printing is performed based on the first image data (Note that, upon combination of Askeland with Nagamura, the resultant device meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising actuators corresponding respectively to the first nozzles and the second nozzles, the actuators being configured to apply ejection pressures to the ink so that ink droplets are ejected from the nozzles, respectively, wherein the controller is configured to differentiate waveforms to drive the actuators corresponding to the second nozzles from waveforms to drive the actuators corresponding to the first nozzles, respectively, when the ink amount per dot is increased (Nagamura, cols. 2-3, lines 64-26, Note that actuators are necessarily present. Also, note that the printing of different data by the first and second nozzles necessarily means the controller has to differentiate ejection waveforms for all nozzles).
Regarding claim 12, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to perform determining whether the dot density of ink droplets to be ejected by the second nozzles per pass based on the second image data exceeds a reference dot density, and wherein, when the controller determines that the dot density of ink droplets to be ejected by the second nozzles per pass based on the second image data exceeds the reference dot density, the controller is configured to increase the ink amount per dot in the second printing (Note that, upon combination of Askeland with Nagamura, the resultant device meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when printing is performed based on the second image data so that the dot density per pass is lower than the dot density per pass when printing is performed based on the first image data, the controller does not use some of the second nozzles among the plurality of second nozzles as unused nozzles (Nagamura, see fig. 9A, Note that some of the nozzles of any nozzle group always go unused when printing normal print data).
Regarding claim 14, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 13, further comprising a carriage (fig. 1, item 106) configured to move in a moving direction (Nagamura, fig. 1, X direction), the ejection head being held by the carriage (Nagamura, see fig. 1), wherein the multiple second nozzles are arranged in a direction intersecting with the moving direction to form multiple nozzle lines (Nagamura, see fig. 9A), the multiple nozzle lines being aligned in the moving direction, wherein, in the increasing, the controller is configured to perform an overlapping process by: causing the second nozzles to eject ink droplets such that landing positions of the ink droplets overlap landing positions of the ink droplets ejected earlier by the second nozzles; and setting one or more of the second nozzles provided in each of the multiple nozzle lines and having the same position in the intersecting direction as the unused nozzles (Nagamura, see fig. 9A).
Claim(s) 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamura in view of Askeland as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Katsuura (9,981,468).
Regarding claim 5, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 4. Nagamura in view of Askeland does not teach wherein the controller is configured to increase the number of pulses included in the ejection waveform to drive each of the actuators corresponding to the second nozzles to be more than the number of pulses included in the ejection waveform to drive each of the actuators corresponding to the first nozzles. Katsuura teaches this (Katsuura, col. 6, lines 7-37, see fig. 5, Note that the number of pulses is increased from Pulse Table 1 to Pulse Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the priority date of the claimed invention to use the heater pulse waveform scheme disclosed by Katsuura in the device disclosed by Nagamura in view of Askeland because doing so would amount to combining a known waveform driving scheme with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the Printing apparatus according to claim 4. Nagamura in view of Askeland does not teach wherein the controller is configured to generate an ejection waveform to drive the actuators corresponding to the second nozzles so that a period of pulses of the ejection waveform to drive the actuators corresponding to the second nozzles coincides with the period or half-period of a natural oscillation of the actuators. Katsuura teaches this (Katsuura, col. 6, lines 7-37, see fig. 5, Note that the number of pulses is increased from Pulse Table 1 to Pulse Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the priority date of the claimed invention to use the heater pulse waveform scheme disclosed by Katsuura in the device disclosed by Nagamura in view of Askeland because doing so would amount to combining a known waveform driving scheme with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 4. Nagamura in view of Askeland wherein the controller is configured to increase an ejection voltage of the ejection waveform to drive the actuators corresponding to the second nozzles more than the ejection voltage of the ejection waveform to drive the actuator corresponding to the first nozzles. Katsuura teaches this (Katsuura, col. 6, lines 7-37, see fig. 5, Note that the number of pulses is increased from Pulse Table 1 to Pulse Table 2. Note that the total voltage applied in Pulse Table 2 is more that the total voltage applied in Pulse Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the priority date of the claimed invention to use the heater pulse waveform scheme disclosed by Katsuura in the device disclosed by Nagamura in view of Askeland because doing so would amount to combining a known waveform driving scheme with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Nagamura in view of Askeland teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Nagamura in view of Askeland does not teach wherein the controller is configured to increase a temperature of the ink to be ejected from the second nozzles more than a temperature of the ink to be ejected from the first nozzles when the ink amount per dot is increased. Katsuura teaches this (Katsuura, col. 6, lines 7-37, see fig. 5, Note that the number of pulses is increased from Pulse Table 1 to Pulse Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the priority date of the claimed invention to use the heater pulse waveform scheme disclosed by Katsuura in the device disclosed by Nagamura in view of Askeland because doing so would amount to combining a known waveform driving scheme with a known printing device to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Nagamura in view of Askeland and Katsuura teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to heat the ink to be ejected from the second nozzles by the ejection head (Katsuura, fig. 5, Note that heating actuators heat the ink).
Regarding claim 10, Nagamura in view of Askeland and Katsuura teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising a supply tank configured to supply the ink to be ejected from the second nozzles to the second nozzles, wherein the controller is configured to heat the ink contained in the supply tank (Katsuura, see fig. 1, Note that there is a head tank, and note that ink contained in the head tank and supplied to the nozzles is heated in the nozzles for ejection).
Regarding claim 11, Nagamura in view of Askeland and Katsuura teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 10, further comprising: ink flow channels connecting the supply source with the second nozzles; and a heater configured to heat the ink flow channels, wherein the controller is configured to cause the heater to heat the ink flow channels (Katsuura, see fig. 1, Note that there are necessarily ink flow channels upstream of the nozzles, and the heaters in the pressure chambers of those flow channels/nozzles heat the ink).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights