DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the discharging fault” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the number of the faulty nozzles in one or more of the nozzle rows” and “the number of faulty nozzles…configured to discharge another type of liquid” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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. The claim recites “a number of faulty nozzles” but then recites “the discharging fault.” It is unclear as to which of the number of faulty nozzles the discharging fault is intended to correspond. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 is 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. The claim recites “the faulty nozzle in a plurality of nozzle rows,” but it does not seem a single faulty nozzle can be in more than one nozzle row. Correction is required.
Claim 7 is 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. The claim recites “when a cause of a discharging fault of a nozzle results from a component,” but it is not clear as to what the claimed “component” is intended to refer. Considering almost anything can be considered “a component,” the language is indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim 8 is 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. The claim seems to recite that a faulty nozzle can have a different position before and after cleaning. It is not understood what exactly is meant. Clarification is required.
Because claim 9 depends from claim 8, it is also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto et al. (2016/016364).
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 17, Matsumoto teaches a printing apparatus, printing system and database comprising:
a printing head (fig. 3, item 35) including a plurality of nozzles (fig. 3, item 100) configured to discharge a liquid;
a cleaning unit (fig. 2, item 24) configured to perform cleaning of the printing head;
a detector (fig. 2, item 10) configured to perform a faulty-nozzle detecting process to each of the plurality of nozzles, the faulty-nozzle detecting process being a process of detecting a faulty nozzle that does not perform discharging properly (fig. 24, S106);
a database configured to store cause data used to determine a cause of a discharging fault of the nozzle (see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality); and
a control unit (fig. 2, item 6), wherein the control unit checks faulty nozzle information against the cause data to select cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit, the faulty nozzle information including a position, in the printing head, of the faulty nozzle detected by the detector (see figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit stores the faulty nozzle information in the database, and selects cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit on a basis of the faulty nozzle information at previous time and the faulty nozzle information at this time (see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database at a previous time and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality. Note at fig. 40 that appropriate cleaning is selected based on the faulty nozzle information).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit determines a fault level of the faulty nozzle on a basis of the faulty nozzle information stored in the database (see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database at a previous time and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality. Note at fig. 40 that appropriate cleaning is selected based on the faulty nozzle information).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit selects cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit on a basis of a tendency of the discharging fault (Note that “a basis of the tendency of the discharging fault” could mean any number of things. See figs. 8, 10, 12, 14, note that calculated values for the waveforms corresponding to normal, dry, bubbles and dust are stored in a database at a previous time and compared to the experimental values to determine the cause of abnormality. Note at fig. 40 that appropriate cleaning is selected based on the faulty nozzle information).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing head is configured to discharge a plurality of types of liquid (see fig. 5, different colors), and includes a plurality of nozzle rows (fig. 5, note rows) including a plurality of the nozzles configured to discharge an identical type of liquid (see fig. 5), and when the number of the faulty nozzles in one or more of the nozzle rows configured to discharge an identical type of liquid is equal to or more than a first threshold value, and the number of faulty nozzles in one or more of the nozzle rows configured to discharge another type of liquid is less than the first threshold value, the control unit determines that a cause of a discharging fault is an air bubble in the printing head (see 112 rejection, figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing head is configured to discharge a plurality of types of liquid, and includes a plurality of nozzle rows including a plurality of the nozzles configured to discharge an identical type of liquid (see fig. 5), and when the faulty nozzle in a plurality of the nozzle rows is aligned in one line, the control unit determines that a cause of a discharging fault is that a foreign material comes into contact with the printing head (see 112 rejection, figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when a cause of a discharging fault of the nozzle results from a component, the control unit gives advice to replace the component (see figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes the database to store recovery information based on a position of the faulty nozzle before cleaning is performed and a position of the faulty nozzle after cleaning is performed (see figs. 26, 40, note that “recovery information” is stored. Waveforms corresponding to different nozzle abnormalities are stored and compared with measured values, and recovery operations are chosen on the determinations of those comparisons).
Regarding claim 9, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the control unit selects cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit, on a basis of the recovery information (see fig. 40).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes a display unit to display information regarding cleaning to be performed by the cleaning unit ([0291]).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the printing head pushes out a liquid within a pressure chamber with drive of an actuator to cause the liquid to be discharged from a plurality of the nozzles, and the faulty-nozzle detecting process is a process of detecting the faulty nozzle on a basis of residual vibration of the pressure chamber that occurs due to a predetermined drive signal being supplied to the actuator (see figs. 8, 10, 12, 14).
Regarding claim 12, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising: a display unit (fig. 1, item 7) configured to display information, wherein the control unit causes the display unit to display: faulty nozzle information including a position ([0291], [0440]), in the printing head, of the faulty nozzle detected by the detector; a cause of a discharging fault of the nozzle; and an option of cleaning performed by the cleaning unit ([0291]).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the control unit checks the faulty nozzle information against the cause data to select cleaning, and causes the selected cleaning to be displayed as the option ([0291], [0440]).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the control unit checks the faulty nozzle information against the cause data to select cleaning (see figs. 26, 40), and causes a plurality of pieces of cleaning including the selected cleaning to be displayed as the option ([0291], [0440], see figs. 26, 40).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detector performs the faulty-nozzle detecting process before and after the cleaning unit performs cleaning, and the control unit causes the display unit to display the faulty nozzle information after cleaning is performed (Note that cleaning occurs any number of times in the lifespan of a printer, and thus it can be said the detection and displaying are performed before and after cleaning any number of times).
Conclusion
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, 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853