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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Subspecies IA, Subspecies IIA, claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-12 in the reply filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 9-10, and 13-22 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 26, 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on August 31, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kosugi (JP 2007-237463 A).
With respect to claim 1, Kosugi teaches a method of inkjet printing, the method comprising:
applying a driving signal (COM_A, COM_B) through a controller ASIC 60 to a head 40, 41, the head 41 including a plurality of nozzles (paragraphs [0036]-[0037]);
driving the head 41 in response to the driving signal (COM_A, COM_B); and
applying a first control signal (i.e., conversion control signal) that changes a driving waveform of the driving signal to the head through the controller ASIC 60. Note in particular that paragraphs [0096]-[0098] describe changing from a first driving signal COM_A to a second driving signal COM_B having a different waveform by an input of a conversion control signal through the controller ASIC 60. Particular attention is invited to Figures 2-4, 13 and 14 and paragraphs [0019]-[0025], [0037], and [0096]-[0098] of the English language translation of Kosugi.
With respect to claim 2, Kosugi teaches wherein in the applying of the first control signal to the head 41 through the controller ASIC 60, a third control signal (i.e., waveform selection signals q0-q7) that designates the driving signal is applied to the head 41 through the controller ASIC 60. See paragraphs [0017], [0041]-[0043], [0060] and Figures 2 and 4.
With respect to claim 3, Kosugi teaches wherein the controller includes discharge data for each of the plurality of nozzles, and in the applying of the first control signal to the head through the controller, the driving waveform is changed using the discharge data. Note the waveform selection signals q0-q7 are generated on the basis of pixel data composed of 2 bits. See paragraphs [0017], [0041]-[0043], [0060] and Figures 2 and 4.
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 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosugi (JP 2007-237463 A) in view of Kondo (JP 2006-205521 A).
With respect to claim 4, Kosugi teaches a method as recited with the exception of applying a second control signal that changes a voltage setting of the driving waveform to the head through the controller. However, Kondo teaches a method of inkjet printing including a control means controlling each driving circuit on the basis of various different pieces of control data for changing the waveform of the driving voltage, as exemplified by the teaching in paragraphs [0018]-[0019]. 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 a control signal that changes a voltage setting of the driving waveform as taught by Kondo in the method of Kosugi to provide better control of the printhead and prevent variations in droplet discharge characteristics.
With respect to claims 5 and 7, note Kosugi teaches wherein in the applying of the second control signal to the head through the controller, the third control signal is applied to the head through the controller and the voltage setting of the driving waveform is changed using the discharge data. See paragraphs [0017], [0041]-[0043], [0060], [0109]-[0111] and Figures 2 and 4 of Kosugi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a method of inkjet printing having all of the method steps as recited, in combination with and particularly including, wherein in applying of the second control signal through the controller, n discharge data are used among the discharge data, where n is a natural number, and a voltage of the driving waveform is changed to a value obtained by dividing a maximum level of the voltage by 2m, where m is an integer greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to n.
With respect to claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a method of inkjet printing having all of the method steps as recited, in combination with and particularly including, wherein in the applying of the driving signal to the head through the controller and in the driving of the head, the first control signal and the second control signal are not applied to the head.
With respect to claim 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a method of inkjet printing having all of the method steps as recited, in combination with and particularly including, wherein in the applying of the first control signal to the head through the controller and in the applying of the second control signal to the head through the controller, the driving signal is not applied to the head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsushita et al. (US 2010/0238217 A1) teaches a method of inkjet printing 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 THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 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 Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights