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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the scanner must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: scanner 20 (page 5, line 21), and the baseline 46 (page 6, lines 19 and 20).
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 lack labels for the axis of the graphs and the specification provides little to no guidance as to what the graphs mean. Furthermore Fig. 3 is objected to because it is unclear what 38 is pointing to. According to the specification 38 is pointing to vertical lines but one 38 points to a blank area in area 36, another points to a blank area between areas 32 and 34 and the other do point to lines which are diagonal not vertical. Furthermore the specification says 38 are “lighter or darker lines as due to the malfunction” (page 5 line 26) but none of the lines shown by 38 are lighter or darker or otherwise different compared to other vertical lines found in the figure.
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
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The specification is objected to for lacking appropriate section headings
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the last line reads “Fig. 3” for no apparent reason. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Element 26 is used to refer to nozzles, nozzle, malfunctional nozzles, and malfunctional nozzle throughout the specification making it unclear what exactly in 26 is in the figure; whether it is supposed to represent all the nozzles, all the broken nozzles, one particular nozzle or one particular broken nozzle.
Element 38 is used to refer to vertical line and vertical lines throughout the specification making it unclear what exactly 38 is supposed to represent.
The usage of the word “continuously” as it relates to the printed areas, used throughout the specification, appears incorrect as continuously implies that the printer is constantly printing these areas. This is in direct conflict to the information found on page 5 lines 3 and 4 “the inspection takes place for example after the installation of a printing head 12 and is repeated in regular intervals or if a printing artifact shows up”. The examiner believes that the applicant intends for the areas to be continuous meaning that the areas are not interrupted by other elements.
On page 2, line 8 the phrase “Like this it is for example possible” is awkwardly worded, unclear and likely requires commas. The following correction is suggested “For example, it is possible”.
On page 3, line 9 the phrase “is in whole less elaborate” should read “is on
On page 3, line 29, the phrase “Figure 2 show” should read “Figure 2 shows”.
On page 4, line 2, the “and” found on that line is unnecessary and should be removed.
On page 4, line 3 and page 6 line 14, the phrase “Bad Jet” should likely read “malfunctional nozzle”.
On page 5, line 14, the phrase “the travel direction” should read “the travel direction 18”.
One page 6, line 8, the phrase “a malfunctional nozzles” should read “the [ malfunctional nozzles”
Element 46 is used to refer to the “base line” and the “baseline” throughout the specification. For consistency it should refer to one or the other not both.
On page 7, line 15, the phrase “one of the printed lines is defect” should likely read “one of the printed lines is defective”.
On page 7, line 22, the phrase “which prints with too big drops” should likely read “which prints
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “and compensating malfunctional nozzles in a print head” (lines 1 and 2) should read “and compensating for malfunctional nozzles in a print head”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “and based on the severity of the malfunction of a nozzle…” (lines 11 and 12) should likely be “, based on the severity of the malfunction of a nozzle…” because the way it is currently written it sounds as if the severity of the malfunction is based on the severity of the malfunction which obfuscates the meaning of the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “using the nozzles adjacent to the malfunctional nozzle to compensate the malfunction” (lines 15 and 16) should read “using the nozzles adjacent to the malfunctional nozzle to compensate for the malfunction”.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of features not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the continuously printed area, the vertical lines, the deciding if compensation is required fail and printing a further test pattern the written description requirement.
First, the feature that “at least one continuously and preferably uniformly printed area” (lines 4 and 5) has no proper support in the specification. Specifically, the usage of the word “continuously” is contradictory to information found in the specification. The usage of the word continuously implies that the printer constantly prints the printing area but the specification states on, page 5 lines 3 and 4, “the inspection takes place for example after the installation of a printing head 12 and is repeated in regular intervals or if a printing artifact shows up”. The inspection referenced in the quote involving printing the test pattern. Furthermore, the claim and specification state that the printing of the test pattern is interrupted by the further steps of inspection of the test pattern and the printing of the second pattern. As such the claim fails the written description requirement and is rejected. The examiner believes the applicant intended to say the printing area is continuous, meaning it is uninterrupted by other elements.
Second, the feature of “indicating that a nozzle is malfunctional if a vertical line is detected” (lines 8 and 9) is vague, specifically what the applicant considers a vertical line. The “vertical lines” in the claim are intended to refer to vertical lines found in Fig. 3 as element 38. However, in Fig. 3, element 38 points to 5 elements it describes as vertical lines; one is a blank area between 2 lines in area 36 and 40, one is a blank space between areas 34 and 32 that appears to be a horizontal line and the last 3 do point to lines but they are diagonal not vertical. Furthermore, the specification says on page 5 line 26 “the vertical lines are either lighter or darker lines as due to the malfunction” but the lines indicated by 38 do not appear any different to any other line found in areas 40, 36, 34, 32 and 30. As such, it is unclear what precisely the scanner is detecting and how the items indicated by 38 in Fig. 3 indicate a malfunction compared to the other lines found in Fig. 3 and this feature fails the written description requirement.
Third, the feature “a severity of the malfunction is indicated based on a degree of visibility of the vertical line and based on the severity of the malfunction of a nozzle, it is decided if a compensation of the malfunction is required” (lines 10-12) is poorly described in the specification. This feature seems to directly related to the “algorithm” briefly described on pages 6 and 7 and schematically illustrated by Fig. 4 and 5. Regarding Fig. 4, it is supposed to show “the approximate location of the malfunctional nozzles 26 as well as the severity of the malfunction” (page 6 lines 6 and 7) but this figure is very vague and does not clearly illustrate this. The x- and y-axes are not labeled and the specification offers no guidance as to what the axes are supposed to represent. Additionally, there is a line at approximately 60 on the y-axis that is not labeled or explained and the points on the graph are also not defined in any way by the specification. Fig. 5 has many of the same issues; the axes are not labeled, and the line at 20 on the y-axis is presumably the baseline 46 but it is not labeled. Also, the graph is supposed to show “the density over the width of a printed area” (page 6 line 15) but it is not explained what specific density is being measured. The density of color, of dots, of lines or of the paper? Furthermore, the units relating to the algorithm, specifically “px_1200dpi” and “Delta_CIE_Lab”, are not standard units known in the art and they are not explained as to what they represent. Also, the specification does not specifically relate what components are responsible for the calculations of the algorithm: whether it is the controller, a computer hooked up to the printer or some other part not mentioned. Furthermore, the exact operation of the algorithm is unknown. The specification needs to recite each step of the algorithm clearly but the lack of clarity within the figures, the unexplained units and the brevity with which the algorithm is explained means the specification fails to sufficiently explain the operation of the algorithm and its place in the broader method. As such, it is unclear how precisely this algorithm works and the information inputted into it, so this feature fails the written description requirement.
Fourth, the feature of “printing a further test pattern different from the first test pattern wherein an exact location of the malfunctional nozzle is determined” (lines 13 and 14) is a contradictory feature compared to what is found in the specification. “If the visibility of the vertical line 38 is below the threshold value, no compensation is required. For example, the nozzles 26 adjacent to a malfunctional nozzle are used to compensate the malfunction. Therefore, it has to be determined exactly which nozzle 26 has a malfunction. For this purpose, a further test pattern is printed…” (page 7 lines1-6). According to this quote of the specification, a first test pattern is printed and if the malfunction is not visible, no further action is required but if it is visible a second pattern needs to be printed. The claim however seems to say that the both patterns are printed regardless of the visibility of the malfunction and then if the malfunction is visible, compensating for that malfunction. This difference between the content of the specification and claims means the feature fails the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 2, the feature that “the degree of visibility corresponds to the visibility by the human eye at a reasonable distance of 20cm” is not sufficiently described in the specification. While the method is designed to compensate for errors that would be visible to the human eye as stated by page 2 lines 7-13, the method itself does not determine the degree of visibility based on what a human can see but rather as a result of what the scanner does and the result of the algorithm, as stated by the specification “the severity of the malfunction is indicated on a degree of visibility of the vertical line 38. This can be done by a scanner or camera…” (page 6 lines 1 and 2) and “the severity is calculated as the area of the resulting triangle above a base line 46…” (page 6 lines 16 and 17). It is unclear how a scanner operates such that the visibility of a malfunction corresponds to what a human eye can see and how that relates to the method found in the specification. As such, this feature in the claim is directly contradictory to the disclosure and fails the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 3, the feature “at least four continuously and uniformly printed areas” is not backed up by the specification. Specifically, the usage of the word “continuously” is contradictory to information found in the specification. The usage of the word continuously implies that the printer constantly prints the 4 printing areas but the specification states on page 5 lines 3 and 4 “the inspection takes place for example after the installation of a printing head 12 and is repeated in regular intervals or if a printing artifact shows up”. The inspection referenced in the quote involving printing the test pattern and the 4 printed areas. Furthermore, claim 1 states that the printing of the test pattern is interrupted by the further steps of inspection of the test pattern and the printing of the second pattern. As such, the claim fails the written description requirement and is rejected. The examiner believes the applicant intended to say the printing area is continuous, meaning it is uninterrupted by other elements.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 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 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “inspecting the test pattern” is ambiguous and it is unknown what the metes and bounds of this step are. What constitutes inspecting? Is having a CPU evaluate the test pattern inspecting, is showing the test pattern to a user inspecting or is simply scanning the pattern inspecting? As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, phrase “at least one continuously and preferably uniformly printed area” is unclear since the “continuously” aspect does not have proper support in the specification. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, phrase “indicating that a nozzle is malfunctional if a vertical line is detected”
is unclear since the “vertical line” aspect does not have proper support in the specification. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, phrase “a severity of the malfunction is indicated based on a degree of visibility of the vertical line and based on the severity of the malfunction of a nozzle, it is decided if a compensation of the malfunction is required” is unclear since the “algorithm”, from the specification, which this step is based upon is unclear and does not have proper support in the specification. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a severity of the malfunction is indicated based on a degree of visibility” is ambiguous. Specifically, the element “degree of visibility” does not have clear metes and bounds as it is unknown what precisely makes up that degree. Does a degree of visibility include size, brightness, color, shape, how an element doesn’t fit in the overall pattern of the test pattern or all of the above? As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “printing a further test pattern different from the first test pattern wherein an exact location of the malfunctional nozzle is determined” is unclear since the “printing a further test pattern” aspect does not have proper support in the specification. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a severity of the malfunction is indicated based on a degree of visibility of the vertical line and based on the severity of the malfunction of a nozzle, it is decided if a compensation of the malfunction is required” is unclear because this step is not a positively recited part of the method. When the step does not use an “ing” verb the step seems to occur outside the method making the scope of the claim unclear and indefinite. The examiner recommends changing the start of that limitation to “indicating” and creating a separate step for the second half of the claim and starting that step with “deciding”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “it is decided if a compensation of the malfunction is required” is unclear because “it” can be ambiguous in meaning. Is “it” the severity of the malfunction, the degree of visibility, the vertical line or some other element? As such, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is performing the method of inspecting the nozzles, indicating that a nozzle malfunctional, and deciding if compensation is required. Is it some sort of computer within the printer, a computer hooked up to the printer or is it a user who manually looks at the test pattern? Because of this, it is unknown what the metes and bounds of these limitations are, as the component performing the action heavily effects how these actions are performed and what methods would anticipate the claim. As such, it is unknown what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the degree of visibility corresponds to the visibility by the human eye at a reasonable distance of 20cm” is unclear since the “corresponds to the visibility by the human eye” aspect does not have proper support in the specification. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
The term “reasonable” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reasonable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “visibility” used with regards to the human eye in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “the capability of an object to perceive something,” while the accepted meaning is “how easily an object is seen or how easily it is to perceive through an object such as weather.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The applicant likely meant to use the term perception.
Regarding claim 3, the feature “at least four continuously and uniformly printed areas” is unclear since the “continuously” aspect does not have proper support in the specification. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are and it is indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “approximate” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does approximate mean within a few nozzles, which head is malfunctioning, which row of nozzles is malfunctioning?
Due to the extreme indefiniteness of the claims with respect to 35 USC 112 rejections set forth above, an examination of these claims with respect to the prior art could not be completed at this time since the exact scope and meaning of the claims could not be readily determined. An examination of claims 1-5 with respect to the prior art will be completed when the claims are in proper compliance with 35 USC 112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishikawa (US 20110234676 A1) and Morimoto (US 20040141022 A1) are added to disclosure since they appear to disclose a method similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights