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
Applicant’s election of Species A in the reply filed on 4/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2025, 8/8/2025, and 7/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Terada (US 2014/0292888 A1).
Regarding claims 1-8:
Terada discloses a test pattern (Fig. 6) that is printed on a medium by ejecting inks onto the medium (sheet P) from an inkjet head (3x) including a plurality of nozzle portions (paragraphs 71-72), the test pattern comprising various markings (Fig. 6).
Examiner recognizes the limitations that the test pattern comprises first base lines, first blocks, and second blocks. However, these claims are directed towards printed matter. It has been held that printed matter does not hold patentable weight when the printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate. While Examiner acknowledges that analysis of the claimed test pattern to determine and/or correct for tilt may be useful, the claims are not directed towards such features. Rather, the claims are directed towards the printed matter itself, which is not functionally or structurally related to the medium upon which the lines and blocks are printed. Specifically, the medium appears to serve as a mere support for the lines and blocks. See MPEP 2111.05.
Because the first base lines, first blocks, and second blocks (i.e. the printed matter) do not functionally or structurally relate to the medium on which they are printed, these features are not granted patentable weight, and are therefore patentably indistinguishable from Terada’s printed test pattern.
Regarding claim 10:
Terada discloses a printing device (1) that prints a test pattern (Fig. 6) that is printed on a medium by ejecting inks onto the medium (sheet P) from an inkjet head (3x) including a plurality of nozzle portions (paragraphs 71-72), the printing device configured to form the test pattern comprising various markings (Fig. 6).
Examiner recognizes the limitations that the test pattern comprises first base lines, first blocks, and second blocks. However, these claims are directed towards printed matter. It has been held that printed matter does not hold patentable weight when the printed matter is not functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate. While Examiner acknowledges that analysis of the claimed test pattern to determine and/or correct for tilt may be useful, the claims are not directed towards such features. Rather, the claim body is directed towards the printed matter itself, which is not functionally or structurally related to the medium upon which the lines and blocks are printed. Specifically, the medium appears to serve as a mere support for the lines and blocks. See MPEP 2111.05.
Because the first base lines, first blocks, and second blocks (i.e. the printed matter) do not functionally or structurally relate to the medium on which they are printed, these features are not granted patentable weight, and are therefore patentably indistinguishable from Terada’s printing device configured to form a test pattern.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Terada (US 2014/0292888 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not constitute an indication of allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
Terada discloses a test pattern that is printed on a medium by ejecting inks onto a medium from an inkjet head including a plurality of nozzle portions, the test pattern comprising:
first base lines (first line patterns 111a) formed in a first direction (“scanning direction”) with inks ejected from first nozzle portions of the inkjet head (paragraphs 47-48 & Figs. 4A-C);
first blocks (second line patterns 112a) and second blocks (112a) formed with inks ejected from second nozzle portions of the inkjet head that are provided at intervals from the first nozzle portions in the first direction (paragraph 49-50 & Figs. 5A-C),
wherein the first blocks are formed on one side of each of the first base lines in a second direction (“transporting direction”) orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 5), and the second blocks are formed on the other side of each of the first base lines (Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Plante et al. (US 7380898 B2).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not constitute an indication of allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 1:
Plante et al. disclose a test pattern that is printed on a medium by ejecting inks onto a medium from an inkjet head including a plurality of nozzle portions, the test pattern comprising:
first base lines (base parallel lines 401-406) formed in a first direction (Y-direction) with inks ejected from first nozzle portions (col. 7, lines 43-45) of the inkjet head (Figs. 3-4);
first blocks (upper steps of stairs 410-415) and second blocks (lower steps of stairs 410-415) formed with inks ejected from second nozzle portions (col. 7, lines 50-61) of the inkjet head that are provided at intervals from the first nozzle portions in the first direction (Fig. 4),
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), and the second blocks are formed on the other side of each of the first base lines (Figs. 4, 6).
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 3:
Plante et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1. Examiner notes that the claim limitation that “the inkjet head is provided to be pivotable about a tilt shaft extending in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction” is a recitation directed towards the particular structure of the inkjet head, and is not patentably germane to the structure of the claimed test pattern.
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 et al. (US 2015/0091958 A1).
The absence of a claim rejection under this heading does not constitute an indication of allowability over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 3:
Plante et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the inkjet head is provided to be pivotable about a tilt shaft extending in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction.
However, Terada et al. disclose an inkjet head (head unit 3x) that is pivotable about a tilt shaft (a rotation center 31b, 32b) extending in a third direction orthogonal to a first direction and a second direction (paragraph 41), so as to enable posture adjustment of the inkjet head (paragraph 60).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Plante et al.’s inkjet head to include a tilt shaft, such as taught by Terada et al.
Examiner notes that the instant claims are directed towards a “test pattern,” and that the particular structure of the inkjet head is not germane to the structure of the test pattern as claimed.
Regarding claim 4:
Plante et al.’s modified invention 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. 5-6), 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 (for any degree of tilt, one side of the test pattern would naturally become darker, because of the distance between nozzles used to print the test pattern: col. 7, lines 27-67 & Figs. 3-6).
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).
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