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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 8/28/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed individually.
Applicant argues that Plante does not disclose the claimed feature that “a distance between the first blocks formed on the one side and the second blocks formed on the other side in the second direction is equal to a width of each of the first base lines in the second direction” because “the lines 410-415 (compared to the first blocks and second blocks in this case) of Plante have a greater distance therebetween than the width of each of the lines 401-406” (page 13 of remarks). However, Applicant fails to cite any portions of Plante in this argument.
Plante discloses that a first set of nozzles is used to form a set of basic print lines 401-406, and that a second set of nozzles is used to form an overlay of stairs (410-415: Fig. 4). Each step in each stair pattern is disclosed as being formed by adjacent nozzles, such that “if the system is perfect” the central step “will exactly overlap” the basic print line (col. 7, lines 27-67). Moreover, Plante teaches that, in actual instances of pattern formation, the thicknesses of each step and/or line are equal (see Figs. 8-9). Therefore, the distance between those steps immediately adjacent to the print line must be separated by “a width of each of the first base lines in the second direction,” as claimed.
Applicant also argues that Plante does not disclose the claimed feature that “a combination including one of the first base lines, one of the first blocks and one of the second blocks has a width corresponding to three dots in the second direction.” However, this argument fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In fact, Plante does disclose that each step in each stair pattern is disclosed as being formed by adjacent nozzles, such that “if the system is perfect” the central step “will exactly overlap” the basic print line (col. 7, lines 27-67). Moreover, Plante teaches that, in actual instances of pattern formation, the thicknesses of each step and/or line are equal (see Figs. 8-9). Therefore, Plante’s test pattern forms a combination including a first base line, a first block, and a second block that “has a width corresponding to three dots in the second direction,” as claimed.
In light of the above, Examiner has found no reason to withdraw the rejection(s) over Plante.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: this claims have not been amended to reflect the change to the “tilt correction system.” In particular, these claims now require that the tilt correction system itself further comprises various printed elements (e.g. second base lines”, “third blocks”, “fourth blocks”), rather than the test pattern comprises the printed elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
This claim requires the nozzles of the first nozzle portions and the second nozzle portions to be arrange “at the same positions in the second direction.”
Upon review of the underlying disclosure, this feature is specific to the modified test pattern 50A presented by Fig. 24. However, this test pattern does not form the first and second blocks in the manner required by recent amendments. Specifically, the test pattern in Fig. 24 forms combinations with a width corresponding to five dots in the second direction.
Therefore, the combination of limitations presented by currently amended claims 1 and 7 do not appear in the originally filed disclosure, and was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Plante et al. (US 7380898 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 10:
Plante et al. disclose a tilt correction system/printing device comprising a controller (inherent to the controls described in col. 8, lines 1-41), an inkjet head (printhead 220), a medium (media 130), and a test pattern that is printed on the medium by ejecting inks onto the medium from the inkjet head including first nozzle portions (e.g. even nozzles) and second nozzle portions (e.g. odd nozzles), the test pattern comprising first base lines (base parallel lines 401-406), first blocks (those steps above the base lines), and second blocks (those steps below the base lines), wherein the controller is configured to:
control the first nozzle portions to form the first base lines in a first direction (Y-direction: col. 7, lines 43-45); and
control the second nozzle portions to form the first blocks and the second blocks (col. 7, lines 50-61), wherein the second nozzle portions of the inkjet head are provided at intervals from the first nozzle portions in the first direction (Figs. 3),
wherein the first blocks are formed on one side of each of the first base lines in a second direction (X-direction) orthogonal to the first direction (Figs. 4, 6, 8-9), and the second blocks are formed on the other side of each of the first base lines (Figs. 4, 6, 8-9), a distance between the first blocks formed on the one side and the second blocks formed on the other side in the second direction is equal to a width of each of the first base lines in the second direction (Figs. 8-9), and a combination including one of the first base lines, one of the first blocks and one of the second blocks has a width corresponding to three dots in the second direction (col. 7, lines 27-67 & Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 2:
Plante et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that a plurality of the first base lines is formed at intervals in the second direction (Fig. 4),
wherein a plurality of the first blocks is arranged in the second direction on the one side of each of the plurality of first base lines (Fig. 4),
wherein a plurality of the second blocks is arranged in the second direction on the other side of each of the plurality of first base lines (Fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of the first blocks and the plurality of second blocks are arranged at positions shifted from each other such that the first and second blocks do not overlap each other in the second direction (Fig. 4), and
wherein a set of the first blocks forms a first figure (Figs. 4-6), and a set of the second blocks forms a second figure (Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 6:
Plante et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the first nozzle portions and the second nozzle portions include a plurality of nozzles arranged at regular intervals in the second direction (col. 7, lines 42-67 & Fig. 3),
wherein the nozzles of the first nozzle portions and the nozzles of the second nozzle portions are alternately arranged in the second direction (Fig. 3),
wherein the first base lines are formed by first nozzles of the first nozzle portions (col. 7, lines 42-67 & Fig. 3),
wherein the first blocks are formed by second nozzles of the second nozzle portions (col. 7, lines 42-67), the second nozzles being adjacent to the first nozzles on one side in the second direction (Fig. 3), and
wherein the second blocks are formed by third nozzles of the second nozzle portions (col. 7, lines 42-67), the third nozzles being adjacent to the first nozzles on the other side in the second direction (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante et al. (US 7380898 B2) in view of Terada (US 2015/0091958 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Plante et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose that the inkjet head is provided to be pivotable about a tilt shaft.
However, Terada discloses an inkjet head (head unit 3x) that is provided to be pivotable about a tilt shaft (cams 31, 32) extending in a third direction orthogonal to a first and second direction (paragraph 41 & Fig. 3), so as to enable head tilt adjustment (paragraphs 60-66).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Plante et al.’s inkjet head so as to be pivotable about a tilt shaft, as taught by Terada.
Regarding claim 4:
Plante et al.’s modified system comprises all the limitations of claim 3, and Plante et al. also disclose that the first figure and the second figure are figures having different designs (Figs. 4, 6, 8-9), and one of the first figure and the second figure is visually recognized as a figure darker than the other depending on a pivoting direction of the tilt shaft (a tilted printhead inherently overlaps the base line and steps differently, and thus produces “darker” and “lighter” figures according to the tilt: Figs. 4, 6).
Regarding claim 5:
Plante et al.’s modified invention comprises all the limitations of claim 3, and Plante et al. also disclose that each of the first figure and the second figure includes a mark indicating the pivoting direction of the tilt shaft (at least steps printed by odd-numbered nozzles: Figs. 3-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 appears to contain allowable subject matter because the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious a tilt correction system in which the test pattern forms second base lines, third blocks, and fourth blocks, and wherein “a distance between the third nozzle portions and the fourth nozzle portions in the first direction is longer than a distance between the first nozzle portions and the second nozzle portions in the first direction.” It is this limitation, in combination with other features and limitations of claim 8, that indicates allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights