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 .
2. This office action is responsive to the application Nº 18/906,398 filed on October 04th, 2024 in which claims 1-18 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS have been considered.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
5. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 10/04/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al. (US Pub. Nº 2021/0107278).
9. Regarding independent claim 1: Schneider et al. disclosed a processing unit for an inkjet printing device ([0045], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 100) that comprises at least one print bar ([0045], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 102) having a plurality of nozzles ([0045], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, references 21), wherein the plurality of nozzles is configured to print dots in a corresponding plurality of columns of a print image ([0047], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2a, reference 200) onto a recording medium ([0047], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 1, reference 120), the processing unit comprising at least one processor ([0021], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 1, reference 101) configured to:
- induce the print bar to print a corresponding sequence of test print images onto the recording medium at a sequence of successive points in time ([0047], lines 1-2);
- respectively detect via sensors the test print images printed on the recording medium, in order to provide a sequence of detected test print images ([0048], lines 1-3);
- predict, on the basis of the sequence of detected test print images, a remaining duration until a servicing situation in which a servicing of the print bar is to be performed ([0049], lines 1-3 and [0050], lines 1-3); and
- operate the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration ([0054], lines 1-6).
10. Regarding claim 2: Schneider et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: - determine a respective number of faulty nozzles based on individually detected test print images of the sequence of detected test print images ([0023], lines 1-5; [0024], lines 1-4 and [0028], lines 2-5: By detecting the nozzles for which the offset exceeds the threshold offset, the controller can determine the number of faulty nozzles), in order to provide a time curve of the number of faulty nozzles ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2); and - predict the remaining duration until the servicing situation based on the time curve of the number of faulty nozzles ([0028], lines 1-2).
11. Regarding claim 3: Schneider et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: extrapolate into a future the time curve of the number of faulty nozzles in order to determine an extrapolated curve of the number of faulty nozzles ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2); - determine a point in time at which the extrapolated curve of the number of faulty nozzles reaches and/or intersects a predefined numerical threshold ([0027], lines 1-4 and [0028], lines 2-5); and - determine the remaining duration until the servicing situation based on the determined point in time ([0028], lines 1-2).
12. Regarding claim 6: Schneider et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 1, wherein - the test print image has a plurality of lines for the corresponding plurality of nozzles in the corresponding plurality of different columns ([0023], lines 1-4); and - the at least one processor is further configured to: -- detect that one of the plurality of lines is absent in the detected test print image ([0024] – [0028]; when the offset of any nozzle exceeds the threshold (missing line), the nozzle is assumed to have failed); and -- determine, based on the detection, that the nozzle corresponding to the missing line is faulty ([0028], lines 2-4).
13. Regarding claim 7: Schneider et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: - effect, for the printing of a usable print image, one or more compensation measures that are directed toward reducing an effect of a faulty nozzle on a print quality of the usable print image ([0030], lines 1-4); and - suppress one or more compensation measures for the printing of a test print image ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2; no compensation is performed during the printing of a test pattern in order to preserve the accuracy of the time curve).
14. Regarding claim 8: Schneider et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 1, wherein - the servicing situation is present if a predefined number and/or a predefined proportion of nozzles from the plurality of nozzles is faulty ([0028], lines 1-5); and/or - the servicing situation of the print bar comprises a flushing of the plurality of nozzles with ink, and/or a cleaning and/or wiping of a nozzle plate of the print bar.
15. Regarding claim 9: Schneider et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: - determine, based on the individually detected test print images ([0023], lines 1-3) of the sequence of detected test print images, a respective error pattern of faulty nozzles within the plurality of nozzles of the print bar, in order to provide a chronological sequence of error patterns ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2); and - predict the remaining duration until the servicing situation based on the chronological sequence of error patterns of faulty nozzles ([0028], lines 1-2).
16. Claims 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al. (US Pub. Nº 2021/0107278).
17. Regarding independent claim 11: Schneider et al. disclosed a method for operating ([0016], lines 1-3) an inkjet printing device ([0045], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 100) that comprises at least one print bar ([0045], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, reference 102) having a plurality of nozzles ([0045], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, references 21), wherein the plurality of nozzles is configured to print dots in a corresponding plurality of columns of a print image ([0047], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 2a, reference 200) onto a recording medium ([0047], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 1, reference 120), the method comprising:
- inducing the print bar to print a corresponding sequence of test print images onto the recording medium at a sequence of successive points in time ([0047], lines 1-2);
- detecting the test print images printed onto the recording medium, in order to provide a sequence of detected test print images ([0048], lines 1-3);
- predicting, based on the sequence of detected test print images, a remaining duration until a servicing situation in which a servicing of the print bar is to be performed ([0049], lines 1-3 and [0050], lines 1-3); and
- operating the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration ([0054], lines 1-6).
18. Regarding claim 12: Schneider et al. disclosed the method according to claim 11, further comprising: - determining a respective number of faulty nozzles based on individually detected test print images of the sequence of detected test print images ([0023], lines 1-5; [0024], lines 1-4 and [0028], lines 2-5: By detecting the nozzles for which the offset exceeds the threshold offset, the controller can determine the number of faulty nozzles), in order to provide a time curve of the number of faulty nozzles ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2); and - predicting the remaining duration until the servicing situation based on the time curve of the number of faulty nozzles ([0028], lines 1-2).
19. Regarding claim 13: Schneider et al. disclosed the method according to claim 12, further comprising: - extrapolating into a future the time curve of the number of faulty nozzles in order to determine an extrapolated curve of the number of faulty nozzles ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2); - determining a point in time at which the extrapolated curve of the number of faulty nozzles reaches and/or intersects a predefined numerical threshold ([0027], lines 1-4 and [0028], lines 2-5); and - determining the remaining duration until the servicing situation based on the determined point in time ([0028], lines 1-2).
20. Regarding claim 15: Schneider et al. disclosed the method according to claim 11, wherein - the test print image has a plurality of lines for the corresponding plurality of nozzles in the corresponding plurality of different columns ([0023], lines 1-4); and - the method further comprises: -- detecting that one of the plurality of lines is absent in the detected test print image ([0024] – [0028]; when the offset of any nozzle exceeds the threshold (missing line), the nozzle is assumed to have failed); and -- determining, based on the detection, that the nozzle corresponding to the missing line is faulty ([0028], lines 2-4).
21. Regarding claim 16: Schneider et al. disclosed the method according to claim 11, further comprising: - effecting, for the printing of a usable print image, one or more compensation measures that are directed toward reducing an effect of a faulty nozzle on a print quality of the usable print image ([0030], lines 1-4); and - suppressing one or more compensation measures for the printing of a test print image ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2; no compensation is performed during the printing of a test pattern in order to preserve the accuracy of the time curve).
22. Regarding claim 17: Schneider et al. disclosed the method according to claim 11, further comprising: - determining, based on the individually detected test print images of the sequence of detected test print images ([0023], lines 1-3), a respective error pattern of faulty nozzles within the plurality of nozzles of the print bar, in order to provide a chronological sequence of error patterns ([0025], lines 1-6 and [0026], lines 1-2); and - predicting the remaining duration until the servicing situation based on the chronological sequence of error patterns of faulty nozzles ([0028], lines 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
23. 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 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.
24. 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 of this title, 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.
25. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US Pub. Nº 2021/0107278), in view of Yasaki et al. (JP 2017-182125).
26. Regarding claim 4: Schneider et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 1.
Schneider et al. are silent about wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: select a print job for the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration until the servicing situation.
Yasaki et al. disclosed an inkjet printing apparatus ([0003], line 1), comprising a controller ([0024], lines 1-3), configured to select a print job for the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration until the servicing situation ([0068], lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yasaki et al. with those of Schneider et al. by selecting print jobs for the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration until the maintenance operation in order to reduce printing interruptions and to increase the processing speed of the apparatus by reducing wait time.
27. Regarding claim 5: The combination of Schneider et al. and Yasaki et al. disclosed the processing unit according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to select the print job for the printing device such that a print job is selected that has a processing time until the conclusion of the print job that is shorter than the predicted remaining duration (Yasaki et al. [0058], lines 1-9).
28. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US Pub. Nº 2021/0107278), in view of Yasaki et al. (JP 2017-182125).
29. Regarding claim 14: Schneider et al. disclosed the method according to claim 11.
Schneider et al. are silent about further comprising: selecting a print job for the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration until the servicing situation.
Yasaki et al. disclosed an inkjet printing apparatus ([0003], line 1), comprising a controller ([0024], lines 1-3), configured to select a print job for the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration until the servicing situation ([0068], lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yasaki et al. with those of Schneider et al. by selecting print jobs for the printing device depending on the predicted remaining duration until the maintenance operation in order to reduce printing interruptions and to increase the processing speed of the apparatus by reducing wait time.
Allowable Subject Matter
30. Claims 10 and 18 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.
Conclusion
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
32. U.S. Patent application publication number 2019/0160809 to Neeb et al. disclosed a similar invention in the abstract and in Figs. 2, 4 and 5.
33. U.S. Patent application publication number 2022/0040972 to Hitzlsperger et al. also disclosed a similar invention in the abstract and in Figs. 1, 4b and 5.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights