DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai et al. (2013/0141484) in view of Nunokawa et al. (2003/0077098) and Powers et al. (2012/0056928).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kasai teaches a printing apparatus and method for performing print jobs comprising:
a conveyor (fig. 2, item 14) configured to convey a print medium (fig. 2, item S);
a cleaning assembly (fig. 2, unlabeled maintenance device in maintenance area) configured to clean the plurality of print heads, the cleaning assembly including a wiper (fig. 1, item 55);
an inspection device (fig. 2, item 70) configured to inspect a print image obtained by printing ([0081]), the inspection device including an image sensor and a first processor (fig. 1, item 70);
a print medium feeder plurality of print heads
a memory (fig. 1, item 103) configured to store a program; and
a second processor (fig. 1, item 102) configured to execute the program stored in memory to execute:
controlling a conveyance speed (see fig. 1, item 10) at which the conveyor conveys the print medium;
determining a maintenance content for the plurality of printheads (see fig. 1);
controlling operations of the plurality of printheads and the cleaning assembly
wherein the second processor accelerates the print medium until the conveyance speed changes from 0 to a predetermined reference speed before printing based on each print job is started, conveys the print medium so that the conveyance speed of the print medium is kept at a constant speed including the reference speed at least in a period during which the printing based on the each print job is being executed, and decelerates the print medium until the conveyance speed changes from the constant speed to 0 after the printing based on the each print job is ended (note that this entire limitation is necessarily met because the medium needs to be transported at a constant speed for any images to be properly printed. That is, any operation other than the conveyance unit starting at 0 velocity, accelerating to a positive velocity, and decelerating to a 0 velocity would render a line-type printer unusable), each print job being information based on which of the plurality of print heads eject ink on the print medium to perform main printing on the print medium (note that this is necessarily the case),
wherein the second processor controls an operation of the plurality of print heads so that a first inspection pattern and a second inspection pattern is printed on the print medium in a period during which the conveyance speed is being kept at the constant speed ([0081]),
the first inspection pattern is printed before printing of a main image based on the processing target job is performed,
wherein the printing control unit controls the operations of the printing unit and the cleaning mechanism in accordance with the maintenance content determined by the maintenance content determination unit (see fig. 15, Note that the claimed “maintenance content” is being defined simply as whether or not maintenance is required. Thus, at S102, the maintenance content determination unit determines an ejection failure has been detected, i.e., whether maintenance is required).
Kasai does not teach detecting an event by which the printing should be interrupted, an event in which an amount of the print medium remaining in the print medium supply unit is reduced to a predetermined value or less. Nunokawa teaches this (Nunokawa, [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the remaining medium checking-and-interrupting technique disclosed by Nunokawa to the device disclosed by Kasai because doing so would prevent the starting of print jobs when there was not enough remaining medium on which to finish a particular print job.
Upon combination of Nunokawa with Kasai, the resultant device would have a maintenance content determination unit that determines the maintenance content for the printing unit after an event in which an amount of the print medium remaining is reduced to a predetermined value or less. That is, it would have been obvious to perform maintenance operations during printing interruptions as doing so would increase throughput, so it would have been obvious to determine the maintenance content during an interruption due to a shortage or projected shortage of a print medium.
Kasai in view of Nunokawa does not expressly teach printing a second inspection pattern after printing the main image based on the processing target job is performed, printing a plurality of sheets is started after printing of the first inspection pattern the plurality of sheets are printed so that neither the first inspection pattern nor the second inspection pattern is sandwiched between any two consecutive sheets. Powers teaches printing test patterns any off or in combination before a print job with multiple sheets or after a print job with multiple sheets (Powers, [0042], fig. 4, Note test patterns 16 after all sheets of a previous print hob have been printed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to print inspection patterns both before a print job and at a pause or interruption of printing, such as the end of the print job, as disclosed by Powers in the device disclosed by Kasai in view of Nunokawa because doing so would allow for constant monitoring of the condition of the nozzles, thereby allowing for more immediate remedial action to be taken when the nozzles become defective.
Upon combination of Powers with Kasai in view of Nunokawa, the resultant device would sense that the print medium in the feeder was running low, discontinue image printing on the sheets, print a second inspection pattern on a subsequent sheet, scan the second detection pattern to determine if nozzles are defective and execute a cleaning if the nozzles were defective. That is, the following limitations would be met: when detecting the event by which the printing should be interrupted, the second processor controls the operation of the plurality of print heads is that the second inspection patter is printed after a sheet bring printed, and the second processor determines the maintenance content for the plurality of printheads based on an inspection result obtained by inspecting the print image for the second inspection pattern by the inspection device.
Regarding claim 3, Kasai in view of Nunokawa and Powers teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the second processor for the plurality of print heads .
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai in view of Nunokawa as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hashimoto (2002/0074087).
Regarding claim 4, Kasai in view of Nunokawa and Hayashi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Kasai in view of Nunokawa does not teach wherein the print medium feeder
Upon combination of the references, the resultant device would meet the limitation:
and the second processor controls, while the printing on the new roll paper is being prepared, the operations of the plurality of print heads assembly determined maintenance content
That is, Nunokawa’s technique would register an event when the remaining amount of a print roll was low, and simultaneously thereafter, Hashimoto’s autosplicer would switch a new roll for a used on while Kasai’s maintenance content determination unit would determine maintenance content.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
