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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2-9, 11-14 and 16-18 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one processor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “one or more processors” was previously recited in the claims. Note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 3, it is noted that the claim recites “the print bar comprises K print heads” while claim 1 recites “a print bar having one or more print heads.” It is unclear from the claim language if the print heads in claim 3 are intended to be the same or different print heads from the “one or more print heads” as recited in claim 1. To correct this problem, it is suggested the claim be amended to include the language --the one or more printheads comprises K print heads, with K≥2--. Additionally, in the last three lines of the claim, the terms “the first print head,” “the Kth print head,” and “the opposite second side” have no proper antecedent basis. To correct this problem, it is suggested that the last 3 lines of the claim be amended to recite the following: --a first print head is arranged at the first side of the print bar, and a Kth print head is arranged at the second side of the print bar.--
With respect to claim 4, the term “the at least one processor” in line 2 has no proper antecedent basis because only “one or more processors” was previously recited. Again note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims. Additionally, it is suggested that the term “the alignment element” in lines 4-5 be amended to recite --the at least one alignment element-- to use consistent claim terminology throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 5, it is suggested that lines 3-5 be amended to recite the following language: --wherein the at least one alignment element comprises a first alignment element at the first side of the print bar, and a second alignment element at the second side of the print bar; and..-- This suggestion is to insure the claim language is clear that it is further limiting the previously recited at least one alignment element in claim 1. Additionally, in claim 5, the term “the at least one processor” in line 6 has no proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 6, the term “the at least one processor” in line 2 has no antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “one or more processors” was previously recited in the claims. Note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 7, the term “the nozzle plate” (singular) in line 8 of the claim has no proper antecedent basis because only “nozzle plates” (plural) were previously recited in claim 1. Additionally, the term “a print head” in lines 8-9 of the claim is confusing and unclear with respect to whether this language is intended to be referring back to the previously recited “one or more print heads” of claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, it is noted that the claim recites “the print bar comprises a first print head and a second print head” while claim 1 recites “a print bar having one or more print heads.” It is unclear from the claim language if the print heads in claim 8 are intended to be the same or different print heads from the “one or more print heads” recited in claim 1. To correct this problem, it is suggested the claim be amended to include the language --the one or more print heads comprises a first print head and a second print head--. Additionally, the term “the at least one processor” in line 4 has no antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “one or more processors” was previously recited in the claims. Note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims. Additionally, it is suggested that the term “the sensor unit” in lines 5 and 9 amended to recite “the at least one sensor unit” to use consistent terminology throughout the claims. Also, the term “the nozzle plate” (singular) in lines 7 and 11-12 has no proper antecedent basis because only nozzle plates (plural) were previously recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, the term “the at least one processor” in line 2 has no antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “one or more processors” was previously recited in the claims. Note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 11, it is suggested that the term “the sensor unit” in line 2 should be deleted and replaced with the term --the at least one sensor unit-- to use consistent terminology throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 12, it is noted that the claim recites “the print bar comprises K print heads” while claim 10 recites “a print bar having one or more print heads.” It is unclear from the claim language if the print heads in claim 12 are intended to be the same or different print heads from the “one or more print heads” recited in claim 10. To correct this problem, it is suggested the claim be amended to include the language --the one or more printheads comprises K print heads--. Additionally, in the last three lines of the claim, the terms “the first print head,” “the Kth print head,” and “the opposite second side” have no proper antecedent basis. To correct this problem, it is suggested that the last 3 lines of the claim be amended to recite the following: --a first print head is arranged at the first side of the print bar, and a Kth print head is arranged at the second side of the print bar.--
With respect to claim 13, it is suggested that the term “the alignment element” in line 4 be amended to recite --the at least one alignment element-- to use consistent claim terminology throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 14, it is suggested that lines 3-5 be amended to recite the following language: --wherein the at least one alignment element comprises a first alignment element at the first side of the print bar, and a second alignment element at the second side of the print bar; and..-- This suggestion is to insure the claim language is clear that it is further limiting the previously recited at least one alignment element.
With respect to claim 16, the term “the nozzle plate” (singular) in line 8 of the claim has no proper antecedent basis because only “nozzle plates” (plural) were previously recited in claim 10. Additionally, the term “a print head” in lines 8-9 of the claim is confusing and unclear with respect to whether this language is intended to be referring to the previously recited “one or more print heads” of claim 10.
With respect to claim 17, it is noted that the claim recites “the print bar comprises a first print head and a second print head” while claim 10 recites “a print bar having one or more print heads.” It is unclear from the claim language if the print heads in claim 17 are intended to be the same or different print heads from the “one or more print heads” recited in claim 10. To correct this problem, it is suggested the claim be amended to include the language --the one or more printheads comprises a first print head and a second print head--. Additionally, it is suggested that the term “the sensor unit” in lines 5 and 9 amended to recite “the at least one sensor unit” to use consistent terminology throughout the claims. Also, the term “the nozzle plate” (singular) in lines 7-8 and 11-12 has no proper antecedent basis because only nozzle plates (plural) were previously recited in claim 10.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under each of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vodopivec (US 2014/0111576 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Vodopivec teaches an ink jet printing device 1 comprising:
a print bar having one or more print heads 2; a cleaning sled 4 for cleaning nozzle plates 21 of the one or more print heads 2; wherein the cleaning sled can be moved along a cleaning direction from a first side 21b of the print bar to a second side 21a of the print bar (see paragraph [0084], Figures 2, 7); and
a controller comprising one or more processors configured to:
determine, using at least one sensor unit 8, 81,82, clearance information with regard to a clearance 6 between the cleaning sled 4 and the print bar at least at two different measurement points (i.e., at the 1st end 21b and the 2nd end 21a) along the cleaning direction (see paragraphs [0073], [0076]-0083], claim 2 of Vodopivec); and
adjust the clearance 6 between the cleaning sled 4 and the print bar depending on the clearance information, using at least one alignment element. See, in particular, paragraph [0075] which teaches that the position of the printing head 2 and/or cleaning station 4 may be modified automatically, with a suitable feedback control, so as to restore the distance 6 to the value set during the setting step. Note, this described automatic controlled positioning would inherently include a controller, processor, and alignment element to provide the described function. Particular attention is invited to Figures 2-7 and paragraphs [0058]-[0099].
With respect to claim 2, Vodopivec teaches wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine, using the sensor unit 8, 81, 82, clearance information with regard to the clearance 6 between the cleaning sled 4 and the print bar at a first measurement point at the first side 21b of the print bar and at a second measurement point at the second side 21a of the print bar. See, in particular, Figures 2-7, paragraphs [0076]-[0078], claims 2-3.
With respect to claim 7, Vodopivec teaches wherein the sensor unit 81, 82 comprises
a clearance sensor 81 that is configured to acquire sensor data with regard to the clearance between the clearance sensor 81 and the print bar 2 (via the element 82), as described in paragraphs [0076]-[0081] and shown in Figures 2-7.
With respect to claim 10, Vodopivec teaches a method for adjusting a print bar having one or more printheads 2 of an inkjet printing device 1; wherein the printing device comprises a cleaning sled 4 for cleaning nozzle plates 21 of the one or more printheads; wherein the cleaning sled can be moved along a cleaning direction from a first side 21b of the print bar to a second side 21a of the print bar (see Figures 2, 7-8), the method comprising:
determining, using at least one sensor unit 8, 81, 82, clearance information with regard to a clearance 6 between the cleaning sled 4 and the print bar 2 at least at two different measurement points along the cleaning direction (see paragraphs [0073], [0076]-0083], claim 2 of Vodopivec); and
adjusting, using at least one alignment element, the clearance between the cleaning sled 4 and the print bar, depending on the clearance information. See, in particular, paragraph [0075] which teaches that the position of the printing head 2 and/or cleaning station 4 may be modified automatically, with a suitable feedback control, so as to restore the distance 6 to the value set during the setting step. Particular attention is invited to Figures 2-7 and paragraphs [0058]-[0099].
With respect to claim 11, Vodopivec teaches determining, using the at least one sensor unit 8, 81, 82, clearance information with regard to the clearance 6 between the cleaning sled 4 and the print bar 2 at a first measurement point at the first side 21b of the print bar and at a second measurement point at the second side 21a of the print bar. See, in particular, Figures 2-7, paragraphs [0076]-[0078], claims 2-3.
With respect to claim 16, Vodopivec teaches wherein the sensor unit 8, 81, 82 comprises
a clearance sensor 81 that is configured to acquire sensor data with regard to the clearance between the clearance sensor 81 and the print bar 2 (via element 82) as described in paragraphs [0076]-[0081] and shown in Figures 2-7.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vodopivec (US 2014/0111576 A) in view of Eck (US 2018/0229505 A1).
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Vodopivec teaches an inkjet printing device having all of the structure as recited with the possible exception of the print bar having K (i.e., multiple, K≥2) print heads arranged serially along the cleaning direction with a first print head arranged at the first side of the print bar and a Kth print head arranged at the second side of the print bar. Eck teaches it is well known in the art to have an inkjet printing device including a print bar with numerous print heads arranged serially along the cleaning direction with the first print head at a first side of the print bar and another print head at the second side of the print bar. See, in particular, the print bar 15 including multiple print heads 5 arranged serially along the cleaning direction, as shown in Figures 2 and 5 of Eck. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the print bar of Vodopivec configured with multiple print heads, as it would simply require the obvious substitution of one known print bar configuration for another to allow for efficient printing of multiple colors by the inkjet printing device.
Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vodopivec (US 2014/0111576 A1).
With respect to claims 4 and 13, while Vodopivec is silent with respect to the details of specific means for adjusting the clearance between the cleaning sled and the print bar, note that Vodopivec teaches the desire to ensure constant spacing between the cleaning sled and the print bar by automatically adjusting the position of the cleaning sled and/or the print bar relative to one another as set forth in paragraphs [0020]-[0026], [0037], [0045], [0066], [0071]-[0075], [0079]-[0080], and [0099]. Furthermore, Vodopivec teaches using the sensor unit to monitor the inclination of the print bar with respect to the cleaning sled and vice versa in paragraphs [0075] and [0079]-[0080]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the processor(s)/alignment element of Vodopivec to be configured to adjust an inclination of the print bar along the cleaning direction using the alignment element in order to insure the spacing between the cleaning sled and print bar is automatically maintained at the optimal value so as to provide efficient cleaning of the nozzle plate as desired.
With respect to claims 6 and 15, while Vodopivec is silent with respect to the details of specific means for adjusting the clearance between the cleaning sled and the print bar, note that Vodopivec teaches the desire to optimally control the conditions and ensure constant spacing between the cleaning sled and the print bar by automatically adjusting the position of the cleaning sled and/or the print bar relative to one another, as set forth in paragraphs [0020]-[0026], [0037], [0045], [0066], [0071]-[0075], [0079]-[0080], and [0099]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the processor(s)/alignment element of Vodopivec to be configured to adjust the clearance between the cleaning sled and the print bar based on the clearance information determined by the sensor unit such that the clearances between the cleaning sled and print bar at the first and second side of the print bar are identical in order to insure the spacing between the cleaning sled and print bar is constant so as to provide efficient cleaning of the nozzle plate as desired.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vodopivec (US 2014/0111576 A1) in view of SanJuan et al. (WO 2016/170383 A1).
With respect to claims 5 and 14, while Vodopivec is silent with respect to the details of specific means for adjusting the clearance between the cleaning sled and the print bar, note that Vodopivec teaches the desire to ensure constant spacing between the cleaning sled and the print bar by automatically adjusting the position of the cleaning sled and/or the print bar relative to one another as set forth in paragraphs [0020]-[0026], [0037], [0045], [0066], [0071]-[0075], [0079]-[0080], and [0099]. Furthermore, Vodopivec teaches using the sensor unit to monitor the inclination of the print bar with respect to the cleaning sled and vice versa in paragraphs [0075] and [0079]-[0080]. Additionally, while Vodopivec is silent with respect to the details of the alignment element, note that SanJuan et al. teaches it is well known in the art to provide first and second independently controlled alignment elements provided at first and second sides of a print bar respectively to allow for vertical adjustment of the print bar including adjustment of the inclination of the bar. See, in particular, page 5, lines 24-30, page 7, lines 5-7, and page 13, lines 8-14 and Figures 7-8 of SanJuan et al. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first and second alignment elements at the two ends of the print bar that may be independently driven as taught by SanJuan based on the clearance information determined by the sensor unit of Vodopivec to allow for automatic adjustment of the inclination of the print bar such that the spacing between the cleaning sled and print bar is adjusted so as to provide efficient cleaning of the nozzle plate as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 8 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest an inkjet printing device having all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including, the one or more processors being configured to determine, using the at least one sensor unit, first clearance information with respect to the first print head and second clearance information with respect to the second print head, and to detect, on the basis of the first clearance information and second clearance information, whether the first printhead and or the second printhead are incorrectly installed in the print bar.
With respect to claim 17 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a method of adjusting a print bar having all of the structure and method steps as recited, in combination with and particularly including, determining, using the at least one sensor unit, first clearance information with respect to the first print head and second clearance information with respect to the second print head, and detecting, on the basis of the first clearance information and second clearance information, whether the first printhead and or the second printhead are incorrectly installed in the print bar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lela et al. (US 2018/0178526 A1) teaches an inkjet printing device having similarities to the claimed subject matter such as a print head with alignment elements on each end for adjusting the vertical position of the print head. Additionally, Thiessen et al. (US 2004/0012650 A1) and Andres (US 2020/0114647 A1) each teach an inkjet printing device including a print bar/printhead assembly and a cleaning unit having similarities to the claimed subject matter that are readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J EVANISKO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-4:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Evanisko/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853