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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10, 12, 14, 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-10, 12-13, 15, 17 of copending Application No. 18/735,980 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are substantially the same.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/736,050
18/735,980
Claim 1
Claims 1 and 6
Claim 2
Claim 7
Claim 3
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claims 1 and 7
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 16
Claim 15
Claim 17
Claim 17
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) 1, 5-6, 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al (U.S. Pub. 2021/0107278) in view of Allworth et al (U.S. Pub. 2014/0085369)
Regarding claim 1, a test pattern for detecting an impaired nozzle of a print head (103) of an ink jet printing device (device 100, Figure 1), wherein the print head comprises K nozzles (21, 22), with K > 10, that are designed to print corresponding K dots in corresponding K columns (31, 32) of a line of a print image onto a recording medium (120) (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0020), the test pattern comprising:
A matrix of matrix points has K columns (31, 32) for the corresponding K nozzles and N rows, with N >1 (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0023)
The test pattern has a respective sequence of N matrix points in each of the K columns, of which N matrix points one or more are printed matrix points and one or more are non-printed matrix points (Figure 2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0025; Plurality of patterns will be printed which will include printed and non-printed points)
A printed matrix point in a defined column and in a defined row indicates that the nozzle corresponding to the defined column prints a dot upon printing the defined row of the test pattern; a non-printed matrix point in the defined column and in the defined row indicates that the nozzle corresponding to he defined column does not print a dot upon printing the defined row of the test pattern (Figure 2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0025; Plurality of patterns will be printed which will include printed and non-printed points)
Schneider fails to disclose a test pattern which is designed such that a respective first printed matrix point is arranged in the K columns of the test pattern, which first printed matrix point has at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point within the same row, which at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point is spaced apart from the first printed matrix point by precisely the first number L1 of columns, and L1 >= 2 or L1 >= 3.
Allworth discloses a test pattern which is designed such that a respective first printed matrix point is arranged in the K columns of the test pattern, which first printed matrix point has at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point within the same row, which at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point is spaced apart from the first printed matrix point by precisely the first number L1 of columns, and L1 >= 2 or L1 >= 3 (Figures 5-6; Paragraphs 0060-0061; 0077; 0082-0083; Figures 5 and 6 discloses a test pattern matrix wherein directly adjacent dots are spaced apart)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Allworth into the device of Schneider, for the purpose of providing a operation to identify defective nozzles in a print head which is fast, reliable and scalable to print heads having large number of nozzles (Paragraph 0009)
Regarding claim 5, wherein individual matrix points of the matrix of matrix points correspond respectively to Q dots in successive lines of a print image, where Q > 1 (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0023)
Regarding claim 6, a number G of basic test patterns that are arranged serially in a row direction, with G > 1, wherein the basic test patterns respectively comprise a partial matrix with L columns and N rows of matrix points, wherein L is the number of columns of the test pattern (Figures 1-2; plurality of nozzle test patterns are disclosed)
Regarding claim 8, a method for detecting an impaired nozzle of a print head of an ink jet printing device; wherein the print head comprises K nozzles (21, 22), with K > 10, that are designed to print corresponding K dots in corresponding K columns (31, 32) of a line of a print image onto a recording medium (120) (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0020), the method comprising:
Printing a test pattern by the print head onto the recording medium, the test pattern comprising a matrix of matrix points has K columns (31, 32) for the corresponding K nozzles and N rows, with N >1 (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0023)
The test pattern has a respective sequence of N matrix points in each of the K columns, of which N matrix points one or more are printed matrix points and one or more are non-printed matrix points (Figure 2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0025; Plurality of patterns will be printed which will include printed and non-printed points)
A printed matrix point in a defined column and in a defined row indicates that the nozzle corresponding to the defined column prints a dot upon printing the defined row of the test pattern; a non-printed matrix point in the defined column and in the defined row indicates that the nozzle corresponding to he defined column does not print a dot upon printing the defined row of the test pattern (Figure 2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0025; Plurality of patterns will be printed which will include printed and non-printed points)
Recording sensor data with regard to the test pattern printed onto the recording medium; and detecting an impaired nozzle of the print head based on the sensor data (Paragraphs 0018, 0023-0024)
Schneider fails to disclose a test pattern which is designed such that a respective first printed matrix point is arranged in the K columns of the test pattern, which first printed matrix point has at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point within the same row, which at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point is spaced apart from the first printed matrix point by precisely the first number L1 of columns, and L1 >= 2 or L1 >= 3.
Allworth discloses a test pattern which is designed such that a respective first printed matrix point is arranged in the K columns of the test pattern, which first printed matrix point has at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point within the same row, which at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point is spaced apart from the first printed matrix point by precisely the first number L1 of columns, and L1 >= 2 or L1 >= 3 (Figures 5-6; Paragraphs 0060-0061; 0077; 0082-0083; Figures 5 and 6 discloses a test pattern matrix wherein directly adjacent dots are spaced apart)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Allworth into the device of Schneider, for the purpose of providing an operation to identify defective nozzles in a print head which is fast, reliable and scalable to print heads having large number of nozzles (Paragraph 0009)
Regarding claim 9, printing the test pattern onto the recording medium for every page to be printed of a usable print image (Figure 2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023)
Regarding claim 10, wherein the impaired nozzle of the print head is detected based on the sensor data using a neural network trained in advance (Paragraph 0053)
Regarding claim 11, printing a master test pattern onto the recording medium by the print head; acquiring master sensor data with regard to the master test pattern printed onto the recording medium; and determining training data for training the neural network based on the master sensor data (Figure 1-2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023)
Regarding claim 12, an ink jet printing device, comprising: wherein the print head comprises K nozzles (21, 22), with K > 10, that are designed to print corresponding K dots in corresponding K columns (31, 32) of a line of a print image onto a recording medium (120) (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0020)
Instruct the print head to print a test pattern onto the recording medium, the test pattern comprising a matrix with matrix points, wherein the test pattern comprising a matrix of matrix points has K columns (31, 32) for the corresponding K nozzles and N rows, with N >1 (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0023) The test pattern has a respective sequence of N matrix points in each of the K columns, of which N matrix points one or more are printed matrix points and one or more are non-printed matrix points (Figure 2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0025; Plurality of patterns will be printed which will include printed and non-printed points)
A printed matrix point in a defined column and in a defined row indicates that the nozzle corresponding to the defined column prints a dot upon printing the defined row of the test pattern; a non-printed matrix point in the defined column and in the defined row indicates that the nozzle corresponding to he defined column does not print a dot upon printing the defined row of the test pattern (Figure 2a; Paragraphs 0017-0023, 0025; Plurality of patterns will be printed which will include printed and non-printed points)
Recording sensor data with regard to the test pattern printed onto the recording medium; and detecting an impaired nozzle of the print head based on the sensor data (Paragraphs 0018, 0023-0024)
Schneider fails to disclose a test pattern which is designed such that a respective first printed matrix point is arranged in the K columns of the test pattern, which first printed matrix point has at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point within the same row, which at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point is spaced apart from the first printed matrix point by precisely the first number L1 of columns, and L1 >= 2 or L1 >= 3.
Allworth discloses a test pattern which is designed such that a respective first printed matrix point is arranged in the K columns of the test pattern, which first printed matrix point has at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point within the same row, which at least one directly adjacent first printed matrix point is spaced apart from the first printed matrix point by precisely the first number L1 of columns, and L1 >= 2 or L1 >= 3 (Figures 5-6; Paragraphs 0060-0061; 0077; 0082-0083; Figures 5 and 6 discloses a test pattern matrix wherein directly adjacent dots are spaced apart)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Allworth into the device of Schneider, for the purpose of providing a operation to identify defective nozzles in a print head which is fast, reliable and scalable to print heads having large number of nozzles (Paragraph 0009)
Regarding claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to: control the print head to additionally print the test pattern onto the recording medium for every page to be printed of a usable print image (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0017-0023)
Regarding claim 14, wherein the impaired nozzle of the print head is detected based on the sensor data using a neural network trained in advance (Paragraph 0053)
Regarding claim 15, control the print head to print a master test pattern onto the recording medium; acquire master sensor data with regard to the master test pattern printed onto the recording medium from the sensor unit; and determine training data for training the neural network based on the master sensor data (Paragraphs 0023-0024, 0053)
Regarding claim 16, wherein the sensor unit is arranged after, relative ot a transport direction of the recording medium, one or more print bars of the print head (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0023-0024)
Regarding claim 17, wherein the sensor unit comprised at least one of an image camera or a line camera (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0018, 0023-0024)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 X. 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.
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 February 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights