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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 8 & 9 have been added and examined as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 are directed to an ejection amount upper limit value determination method which is considered to be process.
Claim 7 is directed to a printing device which is considered to be a machine.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites inter alias “an allowable range determination step for acquiring an ejection amount reference value, which is a reference of an allowable range of the upper limit value, and determining, based on the ejection amount reference value, an ejection amount minimum value, which is a minimum value of the allowable range, and an ejection amount maximum value, which is a maximum value of the allowable range; a temporary determination step… which determines …a provisional ejection amount upper limit value, which is a provisional value of the upper limit value; and a first final determination step for determining the upper limit value based on the ejection amount minimum value, the ejection amount maximum value, and the provisional ejection amount upper limit value such that the upper limit value is greater than or equal to the ejection amount minimum value and less than or equal to the ejection amount maximum value” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention teaches determining ranges and values based on other (to be determined) “reference values” and setting those determined values to be the minimum and maximum values of an allowable range. These concepts are considered to be mathematical processes [i.e. determining a difference between maximum and minimum values] and mental processes [i.e. deciding the different values based upon whether the determined value falls within an acceptable range or not].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, particularly, the additional elements of the print head which ejects a liquid and the medium generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the additional element of forming test patterns including patches having different ejection amounts are well-understood, routine and conventional activities, as evidenced by the teaching of OKUMURA (US 2018/0222218 A1) [IDS 06SEP24] and the test patterns shown in Figures 3-4 of OKUMURA. See MPEP 2016.05(d). Additionally, the additional element of reading at least a part of the patches as generically recited, merely read as additional elements performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering as these steps are merely feeding the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements link the abstract idea to a particular environment by performing an action of printing test patterns that is well known in the art and then gathering the data necessary to perform the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the print head or the signals driving the print head, as currently claimed and therefore the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
With respect to claims 2-6, note these claims merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements to provide significantly more or to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogous to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites inter alias “a first process for acquiring an ejection amount reference value, which is a reference of an allowable range of the upper limit value, and determining, based on the ejection amount reference value, an ejection amount minimum value, which is a minimum value of the allowable range, and an ejection amount maximum value, which is a maximum value of the allowable range; a second process… which determines …a provisional ejection amount upper limit value, which is a provisional value of the upper limit value; and a third process for determining the upper limit value based on the ejection amount minimum value, the ejection amount maximum value, and the provisional ejection amount upper limit value such that the upper limit value is greater than or equal to the ejection amount minimum value and less than or equal to the ejection amount maximum value” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention teaches determining ranges and values based on other (to be determined) “reference values” and setting those determined values to be the minimum and maximum values of an allowable range. These concepts are considered to be mathematical processes [i.e. determining a difference between maximum and minimum values] and mental processes [i.e. deciding the different values based upon whether the determined value falls within an acceptable range or not].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, particularly, the additional elements of the print head, liquid, and the medium generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, the element of the control section to perform control is an additional element merely tasked as a tool to perform the abstract ideas in a computerized environment, as neither the performance or result of the abstract ideas improve or better the operation of the control section. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, the additional element of forming test patterns including patches having different ejection amounts are well-understood, routine and conventional activities, as evidenced by the teaching of OKUMURA (US 2018/0222218 A1) [IDS 06SEP24] and the test patterns shown in Figures 3-4 of OKUMURA. See MPEP 2016.05(d). Additionally, the additional element of a reading section as generically recited, merely read as additional elements performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering as these steps are merely feeding the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements link the abstract idea to a particular environment by performing an action of printing test patterns that is well known in the art and then gathering the data necessary to perform the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the print head, the control section, or the signals driving the print head, as currently claimed and therefore the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant did not amend either independent claim. With respect to the rejection of claims 1 & 7, considering the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues several different lines of reasoning.
In particular, with respect to Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues that the limitation relating to the upper limit value determination step as recited in the independent claims do not describe mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes because any mathematical calculations, if present, are merely part of a specific technological process using data acquired from a physical reading operation, rather than the claimed invention itself. Additionally, Applicant argues that the claims require processing performed in response to an acquired read result and therefore cannot be practically performed solely in the human mind. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect the Applicant’s argument that “the limitation relating to the upper limit value determination step…,” the Examiner maintains that the upper limit value determination step as recited which includes determination of provisional values is considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. These concepts are considered to be mathematical processes (i.e., determining a difference between max and min values) and mental processes (i.e., deciding the ejection value based upon whether the calculated difference falls within an acceptable range or not). Note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) states that the “mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because ‘[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.’” The Examiner maintains that determining a difference between maximum and minimum values is a mathematical calculation as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
With respect the Applicant’s argument that “the claims require processing …,” the Examiner maintains that deciding the ejection value based upon whether the calculated difference falls within an acceptable range or not is a mental process. Note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) points out that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind,” is an example of a claim that recite mental processes. Furthermore, the Examiner points out that the acquiring of the read results has not been recognized as part of the abstract idea but instead has been considered to be an additional element of performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering as these steps are merely feeding data to be used in the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the Applicant argues that the independent claims, as a whole, integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the additional elements have not integrated the exception into a practical application because the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use and are not directed to the improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology. While the additional elements were individually addressed, the Examiner maintains that the additional elements, as a whole, were considered in determining that the additional elements have not integrated the exception into a practical application.
Applicant continues to argue that “the claimed reading is not mere data gathering because the reading step is a necessary technical step in the claims.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g), an example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The Examiner maintains that the reading step is insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering as this step is merely feeding the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, the Applicant continues to argue that “the independent claims, as a whole, integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application… since the claimed inventions are unambiguously directed to a technological improvement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the additional elements have not integrated the exception into a practical application because the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use and are not directed to the improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology. As pointed out in MPEP 2106.05(a), the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. In the instant case, the improvement is in the upper limit value determination step and the claim does not add specific limitations directed to additional elements other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not add meaningful limitation that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment.
Finally, Applicant argues that “claims 1 and 7, as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the claims merely determine an upper limit value but fails to do anything with the determined value so as to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the claims fail to recite any specifics about the physical data gathering system and its relation to the overall machine that would amount to significantly more.
As no further arguments were made, the rejection of the dependent claims has been maintained accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim [claim 1], but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim [claim 1] and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim [claim 7], but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim [claim 7] 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 printing method including an ejection amount upper limit determination method and controlling the print head to eject the liquid on the medium in accordance with the upper limit value that has been determined.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a printing device with a control section that is further configured to control the print head to eject the plurality of types of liquids on the medium in accordance with the upper limit value that has been determined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kanda et al. (US 8,827,413 B2) teaches a recording apparatus and method which prints a test pattern and determines different ejection amounts.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
