CTNF 18/885,972 CTNF 83421 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 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 16 September 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHINKAWA (US 2011/0285773 A1) in view of SUZUKI et al. (US 2013/0293610 A1) . As related to independent claim 1, SHINKAWA teaches a liquid ejection apparatus comprising: a head including a plurality of nozzles and a plurality of driving elements, the plurality of driving elements being configured to apply ejection energy to liquid in the plurality of nozzles (SHINKAWA – Figure 1, Reference #1 & #41; Figure 8, Reference #422 & #424; and Figure 7, Reference #Nozzle, all shown below); an ejection inspection circuit [i.e. ejection testing portion] configured to perform ejection inspection of inspecting whether each of the plurality of nozzles is an abnormal nozzle having abnormality in ejection of liquid; and a controller (SHINKAWA – Figure 15, Reference #55 & #60, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of SHINKAWA to: control the ejection inspection circuit to perform a first ejection inspection; after the first ejection inspection, control a driving element to perform a post-inspection driving operation including a plurality of types of driving operations, the plurality of types of driving operations having different driving frequencies for driving the driving element, the plurality of driving elements including the driving element; after the post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118), control the ejection inspection circuit to perform a second ejection inspection; in a case where a first condition is satisfied regarding a relationship between a result of the first ejection inspection and a result of the second ejection inspection, perform a first operation after the second ejection inspection, the first operation including the post-inspection driving operation; and in a case where the first condition is not satisfied, perform a second operation after the second ejection inspection, the second operation being different from the first operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176). Meanwhile, SUZUKI et al. teaches a liquid ejection apparatus with a head, an ejection inspection circuit, and a control (SUZUKI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 4; Page 3, Paragraph 48; and Figure 1, shown below) and specifically teaches first and second inspections and multiple drives (SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraph 38 and Figure 10, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the configuration of the controller of SHINKAWA to include the control of the ejection inspection circuit as taught by SUZUKI et al. in an effort to provide a method of inspection of a print head which determines the cause of the malfunction and the recovery of the malfunctioning nozzle to a normal nozzle (SUZUKI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 4 & 7 and Page 4, Paragraphs 62-65). PNG media_image1.png 502 420 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 338 434 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 436 610 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 616 422 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 425 397 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 366 604 media_image6.png Greyscale As related to independent claim 25, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach liquid ejection apparatus comprising: a head including a plurality of nozzles and a plurality of driving elements, the plurality of driving elements being configured to apply ejection energy to liquid in the plurality of nozzles; an ejection inspection circuit configured to perform ejection inspection of inspecting whether each of the plurality of nozzles is an abnormal nozzle having abnormality in ejection of liquid; and a controller (SHINKAWA – Figure 1, Reference #1 & #41; Figure 8, Reference #422 & #424; Figure 7, Reference #Nozzle; and Figure 15, Reference #55 & #60, all shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 4; Page 3, Paragraph 48; and Figure 1, shown below) configured to: control the ejection inspection circuit to perform a first ejection inspection; after the first ejection inspection, perform a cleaning operation [i.e. flushing operation] of discharging liquid from the abnormal nozzle (SHINKAWA – Page 9, Paragraphs 151-158 and SUZUKI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 62-72); after the cleaning operation, control the ejection inspection circuit to perform a second ejection inspection; in a case where a particular condition is satisfied regarding a relationship between a result of the first ejection inspection and a result of the second ejection inspection, perform a first operation after the second ejection inspection, the first operation including the cleaning operation; and in a case where the particular condition is not satisfied, perform a second operation after the second ejection inspection, the second operation being different from the first operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176 and Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118 and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown below; and Figure 10, shown above). PNG media_image7.png 544 328 media_image7.png Greyscale As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the second operation does not include the post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown below and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). PNG media_image8.png 306 440 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 580 424 media_image9.png Greyscale As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller is configured to: perform the post-inspection driving operation and the second ejection inspection after the first ejection inspection for a nozzle for which a result of the first ejection inspection indicates that the nozzle is the abnormal nozzle; and perform the post-inspection driving operation in the first operation for a nozzle for which a result of the second ejection inspection indicates that the nozzle is the abnormal nozzle (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first condition is a condition that a decrease number is greater than or equal to a first number, the decrease number being a number of decrease from a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection to a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the second ejection inspection (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first condition is a condition that a ratio of a decrease number to a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection is greater than or equal to a first value, the decrease number being a number of decrease from the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the first ejection inspection to a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the second ejection inspection (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first condition is a condition that a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection is within a first range and that a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the second ejection inspection is within a second range, the second range being a range of values smaller than values of the first range (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown above; and Figure 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first operation includes a first post-inspection driving operation; and wherein the second operation includes a second post-inspection driving operation in which at least one of the plurality of types of driving operations is performed with a driving condition different from a corresponding driving condition in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown above; and Figure 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 8, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller (SHINKAWA – Figures 1 & 15, Reference #60 and SUZUKI et al. – Figure 1, both shown above) is configured to: perform a first post-inspection driving operation after the first ejection inspection; perform the second ejection inspection after the first post-inspection driving operation; in a case where the first condition is not satisfied, perform the second operation not including the post-inspection driving operation after the second ejection inspection; in a case where the first condition is satisfied and a second condition is satisfied, perform the first operation including the first post-inspection driving operation after the second ejection inspection, the second condition being different from the first condition, the second condition being related to a relationship between a result of the first ejection inspection and a result of the second ejection inspection; and in a case where the first condition is satisfied and the second condition is not satisfied, perform the first operation including a second post-inspection driving operation after the second ejection inspection, the second post-inspection driving operation being a driving operation in which a driving condition of at least one of the plurality of types of driving operations is different from a corresponding driving condition in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 9, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first condition is a condition that a decrease number is greater than or equal to a first number, the decrease number being a number of decrease from a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection to a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the second ejection inspection; and wherein the second condition is a condition that the decrease number is greater than or equal to a second number which is greater than the first number (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown above; and Figure 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 10, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first condition is a condition that a ratio of a decrease number to a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection is greater than or equal to a first value, the decrease number being a number of decrease from the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the first ejection inspection to a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the second ejection inspection; and wherein the second condition is a condition that the ratio is greater than or equal to a second value which is greater than the first value (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 11, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the first condition is that a condition (A) or a condition (B) is satisfied, the condition (A) being that a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection is a number within a first range and a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the second ejection inspection is a number within a second range, the second range being a range of values smaller than values of the first range, the condition (B) being that both the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the first ejection inspection and the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the second ejection inspection are numbers within the first range and that a decrease number is greater than or equal to a number determined based on the first range, the decrease number being a number of decrease from a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection to a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the second ejection inspection; and wherein the second condition is the condition (A) (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown above; and Figure 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 12, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a purge unit configured to perform purge of discharging liquid from the plurality of nozzles (SHINKAWA – Page 9, Paragraphs 151-158 and SUZUKI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 62-72); and a memory (SHINKAWA – Figure 1, Reference #63 and SUZUKI et al. – Figure 1, Reference #13 both shown above), wherein the controller is configured to: store, in the memory, information regarding the abnormal nozzle in the ejection inspection performed last; control the purge unit to perform purge with a first setting in a case where the information indicates that the number of abnormal nozzles is a number within the first range; and control the purge unit to perform purge with a second setting in a case where the information indicates that the number of abnormal nozzles is a number within the second range, the second setting being different from the first setting (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown above; and Figure 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 13, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller is configured to: in a case where a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection is greater than or equal to a first threshold and less than a second threshold, perform the post-inspection driving operation after the first ejection inspection; and in a case where the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the first ejection inspection is less than the first threshold, or is greater than or equal to the second threshold, not perform the post-inspection driving operation after the first ejection inspection (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown above; and Figure 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 14, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a purge unit configured to perform purge of discharging liquid from the plurality of nozzles (SHINKAWA – Page 9, Paragraphs 151-158 and SUZUKI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 62-72), wherein the controller is configured to: in a case where the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the first ejection inspection is greater than or equal to the second threshold, control the purge unit to perform the purge after the first ejection inspection (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 15, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller is configured to: in a case where the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the first ejection inspection is greater than or equal to the first threshold and less than a third threshold, perform a first post-inspection driving operation after the first ejection inspection, the third threshold being between the first threshold and the second threshold; and in a case where the number of abnormal nozzles indicated by the result of the first ejection inspection is greater than or equal to the third threshold and less than the second threshold, perform a second post-inspection driving operation after the first ejection inspection, the second post-inspection driving operation being a driving operation in which a driving condition in at least one of the plurality of types of driving operations is different from a corresponding driving condition in the first post-inspection driving operation, ejection energy applied to liquid in each of the plurality of nozzles in the second post-inspection driving operation being greater than ejection energy applied to liquid in each of the plurality of nozzles in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figure 5A, shown above; and Figure 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 16, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller is configured to: in a case where a number of abnormal nozzles indicated by a result of the first ejection inspection is less than a first threshold, perform the post-inspection driving operation after the first ejection inspection; perform the second ejection inspection after the post-inspection driving operation; and not perform the post-inspection driving operation after the second ejection inspection, regardless of a result of the second ejection inspection (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 17, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach in the second post-inspection driving operation, a driving time of the driving element in at least one of the plurality of types of driving operations is longer than a driving time of the driving element in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; Figure 17, shown below and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). PNG media_image10.png 666 410 media_image10.png Greyscale As related to further dependent claim 18, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach in the second post-inspection driving operation, a driving frequency of the driving element in at least one of the plurality of types of driving operations is higher than a driving frequency of the driving element in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16, 17, & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Page 5, Paragraphs 69-70; and Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 19, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach in the second post-inspection driving operation, a number of times of driving the driving element in at least one of the plurality of types of driving operations is greater than a number of times of driving the driving element in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16, 17, & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 20, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach as a higher driving voltage is applied to the driving element, the driving element applies greater ejection energy to liquid in a nozzle corresponding to the driving element; and wherein, in the second post-inspection driving operation, a driving voltage applied to the driving element in at least one of the plurality of types of driving operations is higher than a driving voltage applied to the driving element in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16, 17, & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 21, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the post-inspection driving operation is an operation of repeating the plurality of types of driving operations; and wherein, in the second post-inspection driving operation, a number of times of repeating the plurality of types of driving operations is greater than a number of times of repeating the plurality of types of driving operations in the first post-inspection driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16, 17, & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to dependent claim 22, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the plurality of types of driving operations include: a first driving operation of driving the driving element to apply, to liquid in a nozzle, ejection energy smaller than ejection energy required for ejecting liquid from the nozzle; and a second driving operation of driving the driving element to apply, to liquid in the nozzle, ejection energy required for ejecting liquid from the nozzle (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16, 17, & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 23, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the plurality of types of driving operations include a third driving operation different from the first driving operation and the second driving operation (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16, 17, & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above). As related to further dependent claim 24, the combination of SHINKAWA and SUZUKI et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a purge unit configured to perform purge of discharging liquid from the plurality of nozzles (SHINKAWA – Page 9, Paragraphs 151-158 and SUZUKI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 62-72), wherein the controller is configured to: at a particular time, control the ejection inspection circuit to perform the first ejection inspection; after the first ejection inspection, perform the post-inspection driving operation; after the post-inspection driving operation, control the ejection inspection circuit to perform the second ejection inspection; in a case where the first condition is satisfied, perform the first operation after the second ejection inspection; in a case where the first condition is not satisfied, perform the second operation after the second ejection inspection; and after performing the first operation or the second operation, in response to receiving an ejection instruction signal instructing ejection of liquid to a medium, in a case where a purge condition regarding a result of the second ejection inspection is satisfied, control the purge unit to perform the purge (SHINKAWA – Page 9, Paragraphs 151-158 and SUZUKI et al. – Page 4, Paragraphs 62-72) and then drive the driving element to eject liquid from a nozzle corresponding to the driving element toward the medium; and in a case where the purge condition is not satisfied, drive the driving element to eject liquid from the nozzle toward the medium, without performing the purge by the purge unit (SHINKAWA – Page 2, Paragraph 48 and Page 9, Paragraph 151 – Page 10, Paragraph 176; Page 6, Paragraph 110 – Page 7, Paragraph 118; and Figures 16 & 20, shown above and SUZUKI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 36-39; Figures 5A & 10, shown above) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shinkawa et al. (US 2005/016977 A1) teaches a liquid ejection apparatus with a head and an ejection inspection circuit and a recovery means. Yanaka et al. (US 2014/0285554 A1) teaches a liquid ejection apparatus with a head and an ejection inspection circuit and a recovery means. MIHAILOVIC et al. (US 2017/0305146 A1) teaches a method for detecting an operating status of an inkjet nozzle using a controller, sensors, and a pressure wave analyzer . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 7 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 8 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 9 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 10 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 11 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 12 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 13 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 14 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 15 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 16 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 17 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 18 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 19 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/885,972 Page 20 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights