CTNF 18/804,432 CTNF 101415 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group 1 in the reply filed on April 28, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21, 34, and 35 will be examined. Claims 22-33 are withdrawn from further consideration. Because the 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)). Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: In figure 4A , element 406 is not in the specification; it is understood by the examiner that element 406 may be the output detection signal when the ejection port is in a normal state. In figure 4B , element 407 is not in the specification; it is understood by the examiner that element 407 may be the output detection signal when the ejection port is in a non-ejection state. In figure 16A , element 1603 is not in the specification; it is understood by the examiner that element 1603 may be an obtained normal detection signal. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: In paragraph 0043 , final sentence, ink tank 104 is cited as being in figure 2 as being mounted on CR 202 or print head 201. It is recommended to omit the final sentence from the paragraph as ink tank 104 is not shown in figure 2 or add clarity for why ink tank 104 is not shown in the figure. The drawings are further objected to because: In figure 16B , “HIGH AREA (EXCESSIVE SIGNAL INTENSITY)” should be “NORMAL AREA (NORMAL RANGE)” as is understood with figures 16A and 16C. In figure 6 , S604, and figure 15 , S1506, the question “DOES EACH OF EJECTION SPEED AND EJECTION VOLUME HAVE PREDETERMINED ALLOWABLE VALUE?” answers “YES” and “NO” contradict the understood meaning of the question as “YES” is either the speed or volume do not have predetermined allowable value (at para. [0106]) and “NO” is both do have predetermined allowable values (at para. [0107]). It is advised to amend the question to better reflect the answer as would be understood from reading the flow charts. An amended question may be, “EITHER EJECTION SPEED OR EJECTION VOLUME NOT WITHIN PREDETERMINED ALLOWABLE VALUE?”, or similar to later figures, “CHANGE IN EJECTION STATE DETECTED?”. If the “YES” and “NO” are switched in the figures instead, amendments to the specification would be needed for their designations. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0036 , line 3, “whether meaningful and meaningless”, may be “whether meaningful or meaningless”. As noted above, if changes to figure 6, S604, and figure 15, S1506 are such that the “YES” and “NO” are switched in the figures, amendments to the specification would be needed for their designations where each step is referenced . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 8 , lines 4-5 recites “a distance between the carriage and the first detection unit”. Claim 8 will be examined such that claim 8 recites “ a the distance…” based on presumed antecedent basis of “a distance” in claim 7, line 4. The examiner also notes that claim 20 , line 2 recites, “a user instructs”. As written, the claim may be directed toward claiming a person doing an action, however it is understood by the examiner that this limitation is directed to be an intended use (MPEP 2114). It is recommended by the examiner that the claim be amended such as, “the recommended execution of the registration adjustment processing is selected by a user via a GUI screen displayed in the second mode.” The claim will also be examined based on the suggested amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 9-10, 12, and 14 are 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. Regarding claim 9 , line 7 recites, “the determination result”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim or those it depends on. As understood by the examiner, there is a single determination result wherein the determination result is based on four determinations overall (comparison to a first threshold and second threshold for each the main droplet and satellite droplet). Therefore, as it is understood by the examiner, it may be examined such that the determination result is included in line 2 as, “…the first determination unit determines a determination result based on , for each…” for improving antecedent basis. Further, a basis for if the determination result is “true” or “false” needs clarity. As understood by the examiner, “true” is when each volume and speed is greater than or equal to its associated threshold value, and “false” is when any volume or speed is not greater than or equal to its associated threshold value. Therefore, claim 9 will be examined as it is presently understood by the examiner, however clarification is required in the claim language for future consideration. Claim 10 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 9. Regarding claim 10 , recited “the first threshold value” and “the second threshold value”. There is a conflict of antecedent basis with those it depends on. Specifically, claim 9 recites a first threshold value and second threshold value for each the main droplet and the satellite droplet. As understood by the examiner, the claim will be examined such that lines 2-5 recite: “a storage unit configured to store , for each of the main droplet and the satellite droplet, the first threshold value and the second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value for each of the main droplet and the satellite droplet are updated based on the detection result from the first detection unit.” Regarding claim 12 , line 2 recites, “the nozzle to be determined”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim as it is understood from claim 1, the ejection state of the nozzles is what is being determined, not the nozzle itself. Therefore, it may be examined such that ejection state is included in line 2 as, “the ejection state of the nozzle to be determined…”. Regarding claim 14 , line 3 recites, “the ejection speed of the droplet”. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claim nor is the limitation cited in claim 1 of which claim 14 is dependent on. Therefore, it may be examined such that line 3 is amended as, “ the an ejection speed of the droplet”. Further regarding claim 14, line 4 the two instances of the recited “change” lack clarity as there is a “change in the ejection state” from claim 1 of which claim 14 is dependent on and a “height… changed in stages” from claim 14. Therefore to have proper antecedent basis, the change must specify its relation to height/stages or ejection state. As is it understood by the examiner, it will be examined such that each instance in line 4 is “the change in stage”. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 21 , lines 2-3 recites, “the first determination unit does not execute the processing of determining the ejection state of the nozzle”. This conflicts with the main independent claim 1 or which claim 21 is ultimately dependent on as claim 1 recites in line 15-16, “ processing is executed according to the mode set by the setting unit if the first determination unit determines that there is a change in the ejection state”. As understood from claim 1, processing is only executed when the first determination unit [actively] determines that there is a change in the ejection state. Therefore, it is not possible to perform processing based on a third mode wherein the first determination unit does not [actively] determine the ejection state, as recited by claim 21, if processing is only done in response to a determination of a change in the ejection state by the first determination unit, as recited by claim 1. Because of the conflict and an alternative understanding of claim 21 is not provide in the specification that would not conflict with claim 1 (the only third mode is an “OFF mode” that bypasses the ejection state determination; at para. 0141; Fig. 15), the claim will not be examined in this office action for further rejection basis under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 13-15, 17-18, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiyokawa (US 20220016889 A1) . Regarding claims 1, 34, and 35 , Kiyokawa discloses a printing apparatus (printing apparatus 100; Fig. 1), a method for controlling a printing apparatus (method for controlling and performing functions of one or more embodiments disclosed; at para. 0183), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method for controlling a printing apparatus (executable instruction are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; at para. 0183), the printing apparatus comprising: a printing head having nozzles configured to eject droplets (printhead 201 with orifices; at para. 0048); a carriage having the printing head mounted thereon (carriage 202; at para. 0048; Fig. 2); a control unit configured to control the ejection of the droplets from the nozzles (CPU 301; at para. 0052-0054; Fig. 3); a first detection unit configured to detect the droplets ejected from the nozzles (droplet detection unit 205; at para. 0050; Fig. 2; droplet detection unit 205 detects ink droplet and outputs a detection signal; at para. 0063; Fig. 5A-5D); a first determination unit configured to determine an ejection state of the nozzles based on a detection result obtained by the first detection unit (detection signal is sent to sequence control unit 307; at para. 0063; sequence control unit 307 of CPU 301 can determine if there is a change from a reference (S1202 of Fig. 13); at para. 0114; Fig. 13; ejection state being normal when there is no change from reference and abnormal when there is change); a reception unit configured to receive a user input to select a mode (operation button 102 for setting a printing mode and the like; at para. 0046; “modes” include specific user instruction, initial/first time operation by a user, post-replacement of a printhead, and regular with maintenance; at para. 0075, 0102); and a setting unit configured to set the mode based on the user input (CPU 301 starts processing according to mode; at para. 0075, 0102), wherein the control unit causes the droplets to be ejected from the nozzles while moving the carriage relative to the first detection unit (sensor/motor control unit 302 also controls a head control circuit 305; at para. 0053; Fig. 3; lift motor 211 drives lift cam change height of carriage 202; at para. 0051; Fig. 2; height is changed relative to droplet detection unit 205; Fig. 5A-5D), the first determination unit determines the ejection state of the nozzles based on the detection result of the droplets ejected while moving the carriage relative to the first detection unit (ink is discharged at different heights relative to droplet detection unit 205, detection unit 205 sends a detection signal to sequence control unit 307, and sequence control unit 307 calculates/determines any change from reference; as applied to above limitations), and processing is executed according to the mode set by the setting unit if the first determination unit determines that there is a change in the ejection state (sequence control unit 307 of CPU 301 performs processing for adjustment according to mode; at para. 0072, 0102; adjustment is further preformed based on comparison to reference; at para. 0114; Fig. 13). Regarding claim 2 , Kiyokawa further discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the droplets are ejected from the nozzles onto a printing medium while moving the carriage relative to the printing medium (ink is discharged onto medium while carriage moves reciprocally along main rail 206; at para. 0048, 0051; Fig. 2). Regarding claim 13 , Kiyokawa further discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: a notification unit configured to notify a user of the change if the first determination unit determines that there is a change in the ejection state (display panel 103 displays various kinds of printing information, setting results, and the like; at para. 0046; user can also issue processing; at para. 0102; user may set print medium of different thickness; at para. 0098; therefore user could be notified when height is changed/different from reference and/or needs adjustment). Regarding claim 14 , Kiyokawa further discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein a height of the printing head can be changed in stages (height of the carriage 202 (and printhead 201) can be changed in a stepwise manner; at para. 0051; H1-H4; at para. 0076; Fig. 5A-5D), and an ejection speed of the droplet is derived based on a distance that is a difference between a first height before the change in stage and a second height after the change in stage, and on a time difference between a first detection time corresponding to the first height and a second detection time corresponding to the second height (discharge speed is calculated based on difference in heights and times; at para. 0065; e.g. V1=(H2−H1)/(T2−T1) ). Regarding claim 15 , Kiyokawa further discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: an execution unit configured to execute registration adjustment processing if the first determination unit determines that there is a change in the ejection state (sequence control unit 307 of CPU 301 can determine if there is a change from a reference (S1202 of Fig. 13); at para. 0114; if change (Yes), correction adjustment is performed (S1204); at para. 0118, 0122; Fig. 13). Regarding claim 17 , Kiyokawa further discloses the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: an execution unit configured to execute processing to change a pulse width of a driving pulse applied to the printing head if the first determination unit determines that there is a change in the ejection state (sequence control unit 307 of CPU 301 can determine if there is a change from a reference (S1202 of Fig. 13); at para. 0114; if change (Yes), correction adjustment is performed (S1204); at para. 0118, 0122; Fig. 13; alternative to correction adjustment, pulse width of the driving pulse to the printhead 201 may be changed; at para. 0122). Regarding claim 18 , Kiyokawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 15 , wherein the mode selected by a user is one of a plurality of modes (as applied to claim 1, “modes” include specific user instruction, initial/first time operation by a user, post-replacement of a printhead, and regular maintenance; at para. 0075, 0102), and the plurality of modes include a first mode (specific user instruction; at para. 0102) in which the execution unit automatically executes the registration adjustment processing if the first determination unit determines that there is a change in the ejection state (Fig. 13) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa as applied to claim (s) 2 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (US 20100238221 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Uchida . Regarding claim 3 , Kiyokawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , however Kiyokawa does not teach wherein the droplets include a main droplet and a satellite droplet, and the main droplet ejected from the nozzle while moving the carriage is ejected along a trajectory different from that of the satellite droplet. Uchida teaches a printing apparatus (recording apparatus 2; Fig. 1) wherein droplets include a main droplet, and the main droplet ejected from the nozzle while moving the carriage is ejected along a trajectory different from that of the satellite droplet (main droplet 43 and satellite droplet 44; at para. 0071; each have different impact positions/trajectories; at para. 0072; Fig. 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printing apparatus as taught by Kiyokawa such that droplets include a main droplet and satellite droplet each with different trajectories for the purpose of including a smaller satellite droplet for consideration of a more appropriate recording deviation amount as taught by Uchida (at para. 0072). Regarding claim 4 , Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 3 , and Kiyokawa further teaches wherein the first detection unit includes a light emitting unit configured to irradiate light (light emitting element 401; at para. 0062; Fig. 5A), a light receiving unit configured to receive the light emitted from the light emitting unit (light receiving element 402; at para. 0062; Fig. 5A), and an output unit configured to output a detection signal according to an amount of light received by the light receiving unit (control circuit substrate 403 outputs a detection signal; at para. 0062, 0063; Fig. 5A), wherein the droplets ejected from the printing head block the light from the light emitting unit to the light receiving unit (“received light amount will decrease when an ink droplet passes the light 404, the passage of the ink droplet can be detected based on this decrease in the received light amount”; at para. 0062; Fig. 5A). Regarding claim 5 , Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 4 , Kiyokawa further teaches wherein the first determination unit determines whether or not the ejection state of the nozzle is normal by using a first ejection speed corresponding to the main droplet (“IS THERE A CHANGE FROM THE REFERENCE DISCHARGE RATE”, S1202; Fig. 13), and Uchida further teaches specifically wherein determination of if the ejection state of the nozzle is normal (correct recording deviation amount; at para. 0072; ideal/normal deviation amount is 0 μm; at para. 0089) based on a first ejection speed and a first ejection volume corresponding to the main droplet as well as a second ejection speed and a second ejection volume corresponding to the satellite droplet (“correct recording deviation amount can be appropriately calculated based on an ink flying speed taking a discharge speed of the main droplet, a discharge speed of the satellite droplet, a size of the main droplet, and a size of the satellite droplet into consideration”; at para. 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the printing apparatus such that speed and volume/size of each droplet are taken consideration for a more appropriate recording deviation amount as taught by Uchida (at para. 0072) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida as applied to claim (s) 5 above, and further in view of Toyofuku et al. (US 20220153022 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Toyofuku . Regarding claim 6 , Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 5 , Uchida teaches wherein the first ejection speed, first ejection volume, second ejection speed, and second ejection volume are all used for further derivations (at para. 0072), and Kiyokawa further teaches the printing apparatus as further comprising: a derivation unit configured to derive the first ejection speed (sequence control unit 307 calculates discharge speeds; at para. 0065) and may derive multiple ejection speeds (at least V1-V4; Fig. 9B), however Kiyokawa does not teach wherein the derivation unit derives volumes for each droplet. Toyofuku teaches a derivation unit for a printing apparatus that calculates both ejection speed and ejection volume for droplets (waveform determination section 441 calculates discharge characteristics of the droplets; at para. 0056; both discharge speed and discharge volume/amount can be calculated; at para. 0059) after a detection unit captures details of both main and satellite droplets (“The measurement device 300 may be any device capable of obtaining a measurement result in accordance with the discharge characteristics of ink from the liquid discharge head 210”; at para. 0038; measurement device 300 records droplets DR1 (main) and DR2 to DR4 (satellite); at para. 0057-0058; Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the derivation unit taught by Kiyokawa to further derive both the ejection speeds and ejection volumes of both the main and satellite droplets as taught by Toyofuku for the purpose of determining a more appropriate recording deviation amount based those values as taught by Uchida (at para. 0072) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida and Toyofuku as applied to claim (s) 6 above, and further in view of Shimakawa (US 2024/0181773 A1) . 07-21-02-aia The applied reference of Shimakawa has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The rejection of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Regarding claim 7 , Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida and Toyofuku teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 6 , Kiyokawa teaches wherein the derivation unit derives the first ejection speed based on a time between ejection start and detection of the main droplet and on a distance between the carriage and the first detection unit (each time recorded (T1-T4) is based on time difference between start of discharge and detection; at para. 0063; distance (H1-H4) is between orifice surface 201a (attached to print head 201 attached to carriage 202) and light 40 for detection; at para. 0063; Fig. 5; velocity is determined based on the distance and time; at para. 0065; Fig. 6), and Toyofuku teaches that both ejection speed and ejection volume are calculable (at para. 0059). However, prior art of record does not explicitly teach a combination wherein the time is based on a first signal obtained by separating the detection signal and the ejection volume is based on an amount of change in the first signal. Shimakawa teaches a derivation unit (CPU 301; at para. 0065) that derives the first ejection speed based on a time between ejection start and detection of the main droplet, which is obtained based on a first signal obtained by separating the detection signal, and on a distance between the carriage and the first detection unit, and the derivation unit derives the first ejection volume based on an amount of change in the first signal (at para. 0064; Fig. 9C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the derivation unit as taught by Kiyokawa and Toyofuku to separate out a first signal for the main droplet from the detection signal calculate the ejection speed and ejection volume as taught by Shimakawa for the purpose of determining a more appropriate recording deviation amount based those values as taught by Uchida (at para. 0072). Regarding claim 8 , Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida , Toyofuku , and Shimakawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 7 , and Shimakawa further teaches wherein the derivation unit derives the second ejection speed based on a time between ejection start and detection of the satellite droplet, which is obtained based on a second signal obtained by separating the detection signal, and on the distance between the carriage and the first detection unit, and the derivation unit derives the second ejection volume based on an amount of change in the second signal (at para. 0065; Fig. 9D). Regarding claim 9 , Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida , Toyofuku , and Shimakawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 8 , and Shimakawa further teaches the first determination unit determines a determination result based on, for each of the main droplet and the satellite droplet, whether the ejection volume derived by the derivation unit is greater than or equal to a first threshold value associated with the ejection volume and the ejection speed derived by the derivation unit is greater than or equal to a second threshold value associated with the ejection speed, and it is determined that there is no change in the ejection state of the nozzle if the determination result is true, while it is determined that there is a change in the ejection state of the nozzle if the determination result is false (each calculated value is compared to a reference value to determine if it is allowable or unallowable/flagged; at para. 0066, 0068; S64 of Fig. 6; using “greater than or equal to” is similar to using “less than or equal to” as criteria, especially with the overlap of “equal to” and no specific value is claimed; MPEP 2144.05 I). Regarding claim 10 , Kiyokawa as modified by Uchida , Toyofuku , and Shimakawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 9 , and Shimakawa further teaches wherein a storage unit (memory 303; at para. 0026) configured to store, for each of the main droplet and the satellite droplet, the first threshold value and the second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value for each of the main droplet and the satellite droplet stored in the storage unit are updated based on the detection result from the first detection unit (“In each state, the ejecting condition is detected, and this value is stored as a predetermined ejecting condition” and state may include after adjustment; at para. 0074). 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa as applied to claim (s) 1 above, and further in view of Toyofuku . Regarding claim 11 , Kiyokawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the droplet ejected from the nozzle while moving the carriage at a constant speed (printhead 201 (attached to carriage 202) moves with speed Vcr while ejecting droplets; at para. 0055; Fig. 4A, 4B), however Kiyokawa does not teach wherein the first determination unit determines the ejection state of the nozzle based on the detection result of the droplet ejected from the nozzle while moving the carriage at a constant speed. Kiyokawa does teach wherein a discharge angle is formed for an ejected droplet while the carriage moves at a constant speed and that the angle may change after processing of adjustment based on ejection state (Fig. 4B annotated below). PNG media_image1.png 295 402 media_image1.png Greyscale Toyofuku teaches wherein a discharge characteristic of a droplet derived from a derivation unit (at para. 0038; as applied to claim 6) may be discharge angle with respect to the print head (at para. 0036), and the discharge angle is used to determine ejection state (drive waveform determination; at para. 0102; discharge angle may be a second or third characteristic checked for drive waveform determination; at para. 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printing apparatus taught by Kiyokawa such that the discharge angle is detected for the purpose of determining an appropriate ejection state (drive pulse/waveform) as taught by Toyofuku . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa . Regarding claim 12 , Kiyokawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , wherein the ejection state of the nozzle to be determined by the first determination unit is decided based on whether or not a dot count of the nozzle reaches a predetermined threshold (processing may be performed when a predetermined number of ink droplets are discharged; at para. 0114). Kiyokawa does not teach wherein the dot count exceeds a predetermined threshold, however changing criteria such that an undisclosed value is exceeded and rather than reached is considered obvious (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention such that a dot count at least reaches a predetermined threshold as criteria for determination of an ejection state. Regarding claim 16 , Kiyokawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1 , further comprising: an execution unit configured to execute processing to change a distance between the printing head and a printing medium (sensor/motor control unit 302 controls motors and is communicably connected to CPU 301; at para. 0052; Fig. 3; “By driving the lift cam by the lift motor 211, it will be possible to make the printhead 201 move up and down as well as increase/decrease the distance between the printhead 201 and the print medium 203”; at para. 0051). Kiyokawa does not teach the execution of processing of changing a distance as being in response to the first determination unit determining that there is a change in the ejection state. However, Kiyokawa does teach the print head is able to have varied height with each height related to discharge speed (Fig. 6B, 9B). Therefore, because the printing head can have a changing height with respect to the printing medium, and a speed is calculated at each height, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the execution unit to change a distance between the printing head and a printing medium based on a desired ejection speed after determining the best height associated with the ejection state . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyokawa as applied to claim (s) 18 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 20050052494 A1) , hereinafter referred to as Takahashi . Regarding claim 19 , Kiyokawa teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2 , however Kiyokawa does not teach wherein the plurality of modes include a second mode in which a warning message recommending execution of the registration adjustment processing is displayed, if the first determination unit determines that there is a change in the ejection state. Takahashi teaches a printing apparatus (ink jet printing apparatus; Fig. 1) wherein a plurality of modes may include a mode wherein a warning message recommending execution of the registration adjustment processing is displayed (“when the calibration error is detected, it is possible to stop the automatic dot adjust value calculation processing and print a message on a fed print medium prompting the user to execute the manual dot adjust value calculation processing”; at para. 0101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printing apparatus as taught by Kiyokawa to further include a mode wherein a warning message recommending execution of the registration adjustment processing is displayed for the purpose of allowing the user to execute registration adjustment processing and enabling higher image quality as taught by Takahashi (at para. 0084, 0101). Regarding claim 20 , Kiyokawa as modified by Takahashi teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2 , Takahashi further teaches wherein the recommended execution of the registration adjustment processing is selected by a user via a GUI screen displayed in the second mode (user can make selections on a screen; at para. 0104; Fig. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a GUI screen for the purpose of easy-to-understand selection and visual recognition of apparatus features as taught by Takahashi (at par. 0104) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oikawa (JP 2019144139 A) teaches an ink detection method wherein discharge characteristic such as main droplet and satellite droplet discharge velocities and shape (therefore volume) can be calculated using light reception signals (at para. 0117, 0124, 0130, 0132; Fig. 9, 11). Oikawa also notes the separate of detection signals for calculating characteristics for each the main droplet and satellite droplet (at para. 0119, 0127; Ta for main droplet, Ts for satellite droplet; Fig. 11). Ujiie (US 20240198659 A1) teaches a printing apparatus similar to that disclosed in a plurality of the claims. The reference of Ujiie has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). As such, they may be used in future rejection of the application either alone or in combination with other prior art. A future rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) or 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm. 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. 22 May 2026 /KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /SHELBY L FIDLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 7 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 8 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 9 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 10 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 11 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 12 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 13 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 14 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 15 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 16 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 17 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 18 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 19 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/804,432 Page 20 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights