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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 22 August 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 2016/0167364 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, Matsumoto et al. does not specifically teach the exact terminology for the determining device (e.g. print head health; data processing device; acoustic feedback), however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood Matsumoto et al. to teach a print head health determining device when considering the use of Matsumoto et al.’s ejection abnormality detecting means, which is a device used to detect the ejection state of a liquid ejecting head as either “normal” or “malfunction” (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 10) and therefore is a substitute for the print head health determining device which determines the state of the ejection nozzle as either “normal” or “failure” (Present Application - Paragraph 16), comprising: a print head interface for connecting to a print head or log server and obtaining status information with regard to the print head (Matsumoto et al. – Figure 2, Reference Arrows connecting Control portion #6, #33, #35, & #10, shown below); a data processing device connected to the print head interface and configured to process the print head status information and determine a print head health [i.e. detect ejection abnormality] (Matsumoto et al. – Figure 2, Reference Arrows connecting Control portion #6, #33, #35, & #10, shown below); and an output interface connected to the data processing device and configured to output the print head health (Matsumoto et al. – Figure 2, Reference Arrows connecting Control portion #6, #33, #35, & #10, shown below); and wherein the print head status information comprises one or more of: nozzle acoustic feedback information [i.e. residual vibration detecting], information on the prior usage of expired ink, and nozzle failure detection information (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7-10; Page 7, Paragraphs 128-137; Figures 2, 16 - Reference #10 & #16, & 24, shown below); and wherein the nozzle state of only a predetermined number of outer nozzles of a print head are considered for determining the print head health (Matsumoto et al. – Figure 27, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
402
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
622
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As related to independent claim 11, Matsumoto et al. does not specifically teach the exact terminology for the method for determining the health of a print head (e.g. print head health; data processing device; acoustic feedback), however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood Matsumoto et al. to teach a method (Matsumoto et al. – Page 20, Paragraph 258) for determining the health of a print head when considering the use of Matsumoto et al.’s ejection abnormality detecting means, which is a device used to detect the ejection state of a liquid ejecting head as either “normal” or “malfunction” (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 10) and therefore is a substitute for the print head health determining device which determines the state of the ejection nozzle as either “normal” or “failure” (Present Application - Paragraph 16), comprising the steps of: obtaining status information from a print head (Matsumoto et al. – Figure 2, Reference Arrows connecting Control portion #6, #33, #35, & #10, shown above); processing the print head status information and determining a print head health (Matsumoto et al. – Figure 2, Reference Arrows connecting Control portion #6, #33, #35, & #10, shown above); outputting the print head health (Matsumoto et al. – Figure 2, Reference Arrows connecting Control portion #6, #33, #35, & #10, shown above); and wherein the print head status information comprises one or more of: nozzle acoustic feedback information [i.e. residual vibration detecting], information on the prior usage of expired ink, and nozzle failure detection information (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7-10; Page 7, Paragraphs 128-137; Figures 2, 16 - Reference #10 & #16, & 24, shown above); and wherein the print head health is based on a weighted sum of the occurrences of the failure states in one or more swaths exceeding a predetermined threshold (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7-10; Page 7, Paragraphs 128-137; Page 8, Paragraph 140-144; Page 12, Paragraphs 174-177; and Page 17, Paragraphs 226-235).
As related to dependent claim 2, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the nozzle acoustic feedback information comprises for at least part of the nozzles of the print head a most likely nozzle state out of a multitude of nozzle states for a nozzle, including at least one state denoting normal jetting behaviour and at least one state denoting a failure state; and wherein the number of occurrences of one or more failure states is used to determine the print head health (Matsumoto et al. – Page 17, Paragraphs 226-235).
As related to dependent claim 12, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the nozzle acoustic feedback information comprises for at least part of the nozzles of the print head a most likely nozzle state out of a multitude of nozzle states for a nozzle, including at least one state denoting normal jetting behaviour and at least one state denoting a failure state; and wherein in the processing step the number of occurrences of one or more failure states is used to determine the print head health as non-optimal (Matsumoto et al. – Page 17, Paragraphs 226-235).
As related to further dependent claims 3 & 13, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the failure states comprise at least one of an open circuit (“open”) state, an air at nozzle (“air”) state, and a deviating nozzle (“dev”) state (Matsumoto et al. – Page 13, Paragraphs 186-192 and Figure 26, shown below).
PNG
media_image5.png
386
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 4, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the print head health is based on a weighted sum of the occurrences of the failure states in one or more swaths exceeding a predetermined threshold (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7-10; Page 7, Paragraphs 128-137; Page 8, Paragraph 140-144; Page 12, Paragraphs 174-177; Page 13, Paragraphs 186-192; and Page 17, Paragraphs 226-235).
As related to dependent claim 5, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach if the information on the prior usage of expired ink indicates that the print head has been used with expired ink, the print head health is determined as non-optimal (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7-10; Page 7, Paragraphs 128-137; Page 8, Paragraph 140-144; Page 12, Paragraphs 174-177; Page 13, Paragraphs 186-192; Page 17, Paragraphs 226-235; Page 18, Paragraphs 275-276).
As related to dependent claims 6 & 15, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the nozzle failure detection (NFD) information comprises a number of print head nozzles that is failing, and if it is determined that the number of failing nozzles or the number of uncompensatable nozzles that remain after applying nozzle failure correction (NFC) exceeds a threshold, determining a print head health as non-optimal (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7-10; Page 7, Paragraphs 128-137; Page 8, Paragraph 140-144; Page 12, Paragraphs 174-177; Page 13, Paragraphs 186-192; Page 17, Paragraphs 226-235; Page 18, Paragraphs 275-276).
As related to dependent claim 7, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a printer controller comprising the print head health determining device (Matsumoto et al. – Figures 2 & 16, shown above and Figure 29, shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
404
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As related to further dependent claim 8, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a printer controller comprising the print head health determining device (Matsumoto et al. – Figures 2, 16, & 29, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 9, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a printer fleet management server comprising the print head health determining device (Matsumoto et al. – Page 22, Paragraph 291 & Figures 2, 16, & 29, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 10, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a printer fleet management server comprising the print head health determining device (Matsumoto et al. – Page 22, Paragraph 291 & Figures 2, 16, & 29, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 14, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the nozzle state of only a predetermined number of outer nozzles of a print head are considered for determining the print head health (Matsumoto et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 7-10; Page 7, Paragraphs 128-137; Page 8, Paragraph 140-144; Page 12, Paragraphs 174-177; Page 13, Paragraphs 186-192; Page 17, Paragraphs 226-235; Page 18, Paragraphs 275-276).
As related to dependent claim 16, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium that, if executed on a processor connected to a print head, performs the steps of the method (Matsumoto et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 111-112 and Figure 2, shown above).
As related to further dependent claims 17-20, Matsumoto et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium that, if executed on a processor connected to a print head, performs the steps of the method (Matsumoto et al. – Page 5, Paragraphs 111-112 and Figure 2, shown above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shinkawa et al. (US 2005/0116977 A1) teaches a droplet ejection apparatus and method for detecting ejection failure using sound and acoustics to determine defective nozzles. Shinkawa (US 2005/0212845 A1) teaches a droplet discharging device and method for detecting discharge abnormality using sound and acoustics to detect abnormalities. Neese et al. (US 7,210,771 B2) teaches an ink delivery system with a nozzle failure correction method. Yanaka et al. (US 2014/0285554 A1) teaches an image forming apparatus with a nozzle failure prevention method. MIHAILOVIC et al. (US 2017/0305146 A1) teaches a method for detecting operating status of an inkjet nozzle by comparing the acoustics of a pressure wave.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 EST.
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) 272-5960. 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853