DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the landing positions of the ink droplets ejected previously,” “the ink droplets ejected previously,” the total number of ejections,” “the number over overlapping ejections” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the actuators corresponding to the second nozzles” and “the actuators corresponding to the first nozzles” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the number of pulses included in the ejection waveform,” “the ejection waveform,” “each of the actuators corresponding to the second nozzles” and “each of the actuators corresponding to the first nozzles” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the controller is configured to generates” is incorrect. Further, “the period or half-period of a natural oscillation of the actuators” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the ejection voltage of the ejection waveform to drive the actuator corresponding to the first nozzles” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the ink amount per dot” 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 1 and 15-17 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 “a second printing” but then recite both that the claimed second printing has a dot density lower than a first dot density and also has a dot density “increased compared to a case where the first printing is performed.” First, it is not exactly understood what “increased compared to a case where the first printing is performed.” As Examiner understands it, it would seem to state that the second dot density is larger than the first dot density. If that is the case, only a single “second printing” has been recited, and thus it would not seem possible that the second printing has both a dot density lower and a dot density higher than the first dot density. Further, the claim recites “a case where the first printing is performed,” but as recited earlier in the claim, performing the first printing is required by the claim, so there would seem to be no case where the first printing was not performed. Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claims 2 is 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. It is not understood what the claim is intended to mean. Clarification is required.
Claims 3 is 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. It is not understood what the claim is intended to mean. It seems some information is missing from the claim that would be required to fully make sense of the claim. Clarification is required.
Claims 12 is 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 claim recites “the ink amount per dot,” but it is not clear as to what specifically this ink amount is intended to refer. Clarification is required.
Given the lack of clarity of the claims, the prior art has been asserted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagamura et al. (8,556,362).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-17, Nagamura 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, the second dot density being lower than the first dot density (see fig. 9A, note that the dot density in the 6th pass for the second nozzles is 0); and
increasing an ink amount when the second printing is performed such that an ink amount per dot is increased compared to a case where the first printing is performed (fig. 9A, compare passes 3, 4, Note that when the first nozzles are determined not to be used in the fourth pass, the second nozzles print with an increased print density in the two single-pass bands).
Regarding claim 2, Nagamura teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller causes the second nozzles to perform printing so that the dot density per one pass is lower, at irregular positions in a printing area of the printing medium, than a case where printing is performed based on the first image data (see fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 3, Nagamura 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 (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 (see fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 4, Nagamura teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising actuators 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 (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 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 (see fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 13, Nagamura 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 (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 teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 13, further comprising a carriage (fig. 1, item 106) configured to move in a moving direction (fig. 1, X direction), the ejection head being held by the carriage (see fig. 1), wherein the multiple second nozzles are arranged in a direction intersecting with the moving direction to form multiple nozzle lines (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 (see fig. 9A).
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) 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamura in view of Katsuura (9,981,468).
Regarding claim 5, Nagamura teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 4. Nagamura 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 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 teaches the Printing apparatus according to claim 4. Nagamura does not teach wherein the controller is configured to generates an ejection waveform 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 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 teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 4. Nagamura 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 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 teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Nagamura 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 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 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 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 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).
Conclusion
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