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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more printing units” in claim 1, “a scan control unit” in claim 1, “a calculating unit” in claim 1, “an adjustment unit” in claim 1,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“one or more printing units” in claim 1 is read as the item 102 shown in Fig.3, “a scan control unit” in claim 1 is read as item 411 shown in Fig.3, “a calculating unit” in claim 1 is read as item 402 shown in Fig.3 as disclosed in paragraph 149, “an adjustment unit” in claim 1 is read as item 402 shown in Fig.3 as disclosed in paragraph 149.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim1, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato’630 (US 2020/0086630), and further in view of Kamio’586 (US 2022/0345586).
With respect to claim 1, Kato’630 teaches a printing apparatus (Fig.1) comprising:
one or more printing units (Fig.1, item 23) including a plurality of printing element substrates (Fig.2, items 23a, 23b, 23c and 23d) that apply a printing material to a printing medium (paragraph 44);
a scan control unit [regarding to the printing control unit (Fig.1, item 9) that causes a scan device (Fig.1, item 21) to scan a test chart (Fig.3, step S2), the test chart being printed on the printing medium by the printing unit and including a plurality of patches corresponding to the respective printing element substrates (Fig.2 and Fig.3, step S1);
a calculation unit (Fig.1, item 29) that, based on a plurality of scan images obtained by the scan device by scanning the test chart printed on the printing medium, calculates a rate of extension or contraction of the patches corresponding to the printing element substrates included in the same printing unit, the rate of extension/contraction being between a pair of scan images formed by two of the plurality of scan images (paragraph 1, Fig.3, S7); and
an adjustment unit that adjusts positions where the printing material applied from the printing unit attaches to the printing medium based on the rate of extension or contraction calculated by the calculation unit and positional information on the patches on the plurality of scan images (paragraph 42).
Kato’630 does not teach scan device to scan a test chart in a divided manner with a plurality of optical sensors.
Kamio’586 teaches scan device to scan a test chart in a divided manner with a plurality of optical sensors (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kato’630 according to the teaching of Kamio’586 to include a plurality of image sensors to read the test chart because this will allow the characteristic printed on the test chart to be identified more effective.
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 1, Kato’630 teaches wherein the printing element substrates each have an array of ink-ejecting nozzles (paragraph 37 and Fig.2, items 23a, 23b, 23c and 23d).
With respect to claim 12. The printing apparatus according to claim 1, Kato’630 does not teach wherein the pair of scan images is formed of two scan images obtained by two adjacent ones of the optical sensors in the scan device.
Kamio’586 teaches wherein the pair of scan images is formed of two scan images obtained by two adjacent ones of the optical sensors in the scan device (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kato’630 according to the teaching of Kamio’586 to include a plurality of image sensors to read the test chart because this will allow the characteristic printed on the test chart to be identified more effective.
With respect to claim 13, it is a method claim that claims how the printing apparatus of claim 1 to perform adjustment to adjust the positions where the printing material applied from the printing unit attaches to the printing medium because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. Claim 13 is obvious in view of Kato’630 and Kamio’586 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. In addition, the reference has disclosed a printing apparatus to perform adjustment to adjust the positions where the printing material applied from the printing unit attaches to the printing medium, the process (method) to perform adjustment to adjust the positions where the printing material applied from the printing unit attaches to the printing medium is inherent disclosed to be performed by a processor in the printing apparatus when the printing apparatus performs the operation to perform adjustment to adjust the positions where the printing material applied from the printing unit attaches to the printing medium.
With respect to claim 14, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claim 14 claims how the printing apparatus of claim 1 to execute to generate associating information to perform adjustment to adjust the positions where the printing material applied from the printing unit attaches to the printing medium. Claim 14 is obvious in view of Kato’630 and Kamio’586 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. In addition, the reference discloses a process, the process would be implemented by a processor that requires a non-transitory computer readable medium, e.g., a RAM, to function, thus, the medium is inherently present
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato’630 (US 2020/0086630), Kamio’586 (US 2022/0345586) and further in view of
Kanda’815 (US 2020/0171815).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Kato’630 does not teach wherein the patches corresponding to the printing element substrates included in the same printing unit are included in overlap regions of the pair of scan images, the overlap regions being a same portion of the test chart scanned in an overlapping manner.
Kanda’815 teaches wherein the patches corresponding to the printing element substrates included in the same printing unit are included in overlap regions of the pair of scan images, the overlap regions being a same portion of the test chart scanned in an overlapping manner (claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kato’630 and Kamio’586 according to the teaching of Kanda’815 to print test chart having the overlapping area of the print head in the first row and the print head in the second row overlapping in the sub-scanning direction because this will allow the defective ejection nozzle to be detected more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, Kato’630 teaches the patches corresponding to the printing element substrates included in the same printing unit are patches corresponding to the same printing element substrate included in the same printing unit (Fig.2 and paragraph 44).
Claim objection
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 2 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the adjustment unit converts positional information on the patches on one of the pair of scan images to bring the rate of extension or contraction of the patches to 1, and based on the positional information on the patches in the overlap regions, the adjustment unit combines the positional information on the patches on the pair of scan images.” Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim 4 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein based on the combined positional information on the patches, the adjustment unit calculates an amount of positional shift of a position where the printing material attaches, and based on the amount of positional shift, the adjustment unit adjusts a position where the printing material applied by the printing unit attaches.” Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim 5 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the amount of positional shift include an amount of positional shift calculated based on a reference line connecting positions of the patches corresponding to predetermined two of the printing element substrates in the combined positional information on the patches.” Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim 6 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the reference line is a line connecting positions of patches for two different ones of the printing element substrates included in the same printing unit.” Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim 6 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the positions of the two patches forming the reference line are represented with coordinate points based on a single common coordinate system.” Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim 6 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the positions of the two patches forming the reference line are represented as differences each indicating a distance from a position of a predetermined patch located in the overlap region”. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected base claim 6 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein in a case where the printing apparatus has a plurality of the printing units, the adjustment unit corrects the reference line so that a tilt of the reference line becomes same as an average tilt of the plurality of printing units” Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights