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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2023-179683 was received on 02 December 2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 October 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 20 October 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida (US PGPub 2022/0001665 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Uchida discloses an ink jet printer that ejects ink (¶0021) to draw information on an object conveyed by a conveyor (¶0022), the ink jet printer comprising:
an ink tank that stores the ink (¶0024);
a nozzle configured to eject the ink supplied from the ink tank toward a drawing target object (¶0003; 0050);
a storage unit that stores drawing data specifying an ejection timing of the nozzle at each of a plurality of movement positions in a conveyance direction, the ejection timing corresponding to drawing information (¶0028);
an optical measurement sensor that receives light from the drawing target object and generates a measurement value related to a position or movement of the drawing target object based on the received light (¶0022; distance detection sensor 204; Fig. 2; recording medium 203);
a drawing control unit that controls ink ejection from the nozzle based on a current movement position of the object and the drawing data stored in the storage unit (¶0026-0028; 0052-0055; Fig. 7);
an event detection unit that detects an event related to a drawing state based on the optical measurement sensor (¶0026-0034, distance detected by distance detection sensor 204 and droplet detection sensor 205 for droplet speed); and
a storage processing unit that stores information regarding the measurement value generated by the optical measurement sensor and information regarding the event in association with at least a part of the drawing data in response to detection of the event by the event detection unit (ejection timing adjustment processing; ¶0026-0034).
With regard to Claim 8, Uchida further discloses wherein the optical measurement sensor includes a distance sensor that measures a distance to the drawing target object in an ejection direction of the nozzle and generates a measurement value related to the distance (¶0022).
With regard to Claim 16, Uchida further discloses wherein the information regarding the measurement value generated by the optical measurement sensor includes at least one of time-series data of movement speeds before and after the event is detected and time-series data of amounts of the received light before and after the event is detected (ejection timing adjustment processing; ¶0026-0034).
With regard to Claim 18, Uchida further discloses a timing signal output unit that outputs a timing signal indicating that the drawing target object conveyed by the conveyor has arrived at a predetermined position (¶0026-0034, ejection timing processing), wherein the storage processing unit stores the information regarding the measurement value and the information regarding the event as time-series data from a time point when the timing signal output unit outputs the timing signal until drawing on the drawing target object is completed (¶0026-0034, ejection timing processing).
With regard to Claim 19, Uchida further discloses a temporary storage unit that temporarily stores the information regarding the measurement value generated by the optical measurement sensor (Figs. 3-4; 0023, 0028, memory), wherein the storage processing unit reads information corresponding to the event out of the information stored in the temporary storage unit when the event detection unit detects the event (¶0026-0034, distance detected by distance detection sensor 204 and droplet detection sensor 205 for droplet speed), and stores the read information in association with at least a part of the drawing data (¶0026-0034, ejection timing processing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Fujita et al. (US PGPub 2019/0283406 A1), hereinafter Fujita.
With regard to Claim 2, Uchida does not explicitly disclose an image inspection machine that determines a pass or fail of the drawing state related to the information drawn on the object based on an inspection image obtained by capturing an image of the drawing target object, wherein the event detection unit detects the event related to the drawing state based on a determination result of the image inspection machine, and the storage processing unit stores information regarding the inspection image captured by the image inspection machine in association with at least a part of the drawing data.
The secondary reference of Fujita discloses an image inspection machine that determines a pass or fail of the drawing state related to the information drawn on the object based on an inspection image obtained by capturing an image of the drawing target object (¶0113-0114, captured image measurement result density compared and result either negative or affirmative), wherein the event detection unit detects the event related to the drawing state based on a determination result of the image inspection machine (¶0113-0114), and the storage processing unit (Figs. 8-9; 14) stores information regarding the inspection image captured by the image inspection machine in association with at least a part of the drawing data (¶0113-0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the result determination of the inspection image of Fujita, with the ink jet printer of Uchida, in order to eliminate the difference in image density, as taught by Fujita (¶0114).
With regard to Claim 15, Uchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the information regarding the inspection image captured by the image inspection machine includes at least one of drawing data extracted from the inspection image, the drawing state, and a margin in a case where a pass determination is made.
The secondary reference of Fujita discloses wherein the information regarding the inspection image captured by the image inspection machine includes at least one of drawing data extracted from the inspection image, the drawing state, and a margin in a case where a pass determination is made (¶0113-0116, captured image measurement result density compared and result either negative or affirmative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the result determination of the inspection image of Fujita, with the ink jet printer of Uchida, in order to eliminate the difference in image density, as taught by Fujita (¶0114).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Fujita, and further in view of Kimura (US PGPub 2017/0066262 A1).
With regard to Claim 3, Uchida-Fujita do not explicitly disclose a presentation unit that presents the information regarding the measurement value generated by the optical measurement sensor and the information regarding the inspection image captured by the image inspection machine in association with at least a part of the drawing data.
The tertiary reference of Kimura discloses a presentation unit that presents the information regarding the measurement value generated by the optical measurement sensor (¶0026; 0300; 0215) and the information regarding the inspection image captured by the image inspection machine in association with at least a part of the drawing data (¶0026; 0298-0300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the presentation of Kimura, with the combination of Uchida-Fujita, in order that the operator can know they type of failure state and the solution, as taught by Kimura (¶0012).
With regard to Claim 4, Uchida-Fujita do not explicitly disclose wherein the presentation unit presents a reason why a fail determination on the drawing state is made by the image inspection machine in association with at least a part of the drawing data.
The tertiary reference of Kimura discloses disclose wherein the presentation unit presents a reason why a fail determination on the drawing state is made by the image inspection machine in association with at least a part of the drawing data (¶0027; discriminates a type of the floating generated).
With regard to Claim 5, Uchida-Fujita do not explicitly disclose wherein the presentation unit presents a method for correcting the drawing state corresponding to the reason why the fail determination on the drawing state is made by the image inspection machine.
The tertiary reference of Kimura discloses disclose wherein the presentation unit presents a method for correcting the drawing state corresponding to the reason why the fail determination on the drawing state is made by the image inspection machine (Fig. 31; solution as shown).
With regard to Claim 6, Uchida-Fujita do not explicitly disclose automatically executing drawing state correction corresponding to the reason why the fail determination on the drawing state is made by the image inspection machine.
The tertiary reference of Kimura discloses automatically executing drawing state correction corresponding to the reason why the fail determination on the drawing state is made by the image inspection machine (¶0029-0030).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Maeyama et al. (US PGPub 2006/0001691 A1), hereinafter Maeyama.
With regard to Claim 7, Uchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical measurement sensor includes a light projecting unit that projects light onto the drawing target object, and a light receiving unit that receives a speckle pattern, generated according to a characteristic of a surface shape of the drawing target object by the light projected from the light projecting unit, and generates light reception data including the speckle pattern, and generates the measurement value based on a movement amount of the speckle pattern included in the light reception data generated by the light receiving unit.
The secondary reference of Maeyama discloses wherein the optical measurement sensor (¶0025-0027) includes a light projecting unit that projects light onto the drawing target object (light source 200), and a light receiving unit that receives a speckle pattern (speckle measure parts 106a, b), generated according to a characteristic of a surface shape of the drawing target object by the light projected from the light projecting unit (¶0025-0028), and generates light reception data including the speckle pattern (¶0028), and generates the measurement value based on a movement amount of the speckle pattern included in the light reception data generated by the light receiving unit (¶0040-0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the optical measurement sensor of Maeyama, with the ink jet printer of Uchida, in order to detect a type of sheet, as taught by Maeyama (¶0010-0012).
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, in view of Matsumoto (US PGPub 2002/0154186 A1).
With regard to Claim 9, Uchida further discloses wherein the optical measurement sensor includes a distance sensor that measures a distance to the object in an ejection direction of the nozzle and generates a measurement value related to the distance (¶0022).
Uchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the event detection unit detects that the measurement value measured by the distance sensor is out of a predetermined range as the event related to the drawing state.
The secondary reference of Matsumoto discloses wherein the event detection unit detects that the measurement value measured by the distance sensor is out of a predetermined range as the event related to the drawing state (¶0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the event out of the predetermined range of Matsumoto, with the apparatus of Uchida, in order to control the ejection/printing as desired, as taught by Matsumoto (¶0106).
With regard to Claim 10, Uchida further discloses wherein the storage processing unit stores time-series data of the distance to the object before and after the event is detected in association with at least a part of the drawing data (¶0028).
With regard to Claim 11, Uchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the event detection unit compares the measurement value generated by the distance sensor with a threshold, and detects a case where the measurement value exceeds the threshold as the event, and the storage processing unit stores a comparison result between the measurement value generated by the distance sensor and the threshold.
The secondary reference of Matsumoto discloses wherein the event detection unit compares the measurement value generated by the distance sensor with a threshold, and detects a case where the measurement value exceeds the threshold as the event, and the storage processing unit stores a comparison result between the measurement value generated by the distance sensor and the threshold (¶0058-0059; 0101; 0106).
With regard to Claim 12, Uchida further discloses wherein the optical measurement sensor includes a movement measurement sensor that generates a measurement value related to movement of the object in the conveyance direction (¶0028), however does not explicitly disclose the event detection unit detects that the measurement value generated by the movement measurement sensor is out of a predetermined range as the event related to the drawing state.
The secondary reference of Matsumoto discloses the event detection unit detects that the measurement value generated by the movement measurement sensor is out of a predetermined range as the event related to the drawing state (¶0058-0059; 0101; 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the event out of the predetermined range of Matsumoto, with the apparatus of Uchida, in order to control the ejection/printing as desired, as taught by Matsumoto (¶0106).
With regard to Claim 13, Uchida further discloses wherein the optical measurement sensor is a movement measurement sensor that generates a measurement value related to movement of the object in a direction orthogonal to the conveyance direction by the conveyor (Figs. 1-2; ¶0028), however does not explicitly disclose wherein the event detection unit detects that the measurement value related to the movement in a direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction measured by the movement measurement sensor is out of a predetermined range as the event related to the drawing state.
The secondary reference of Matsumoto discloses wherein the event detection unit detects that the measurement value related to the movement in a direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction measured by the movement measurement sensor is out of a predetermined range as the event related to the drawing state (¶0058-0059; 0101; 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the event out of the predetermined range of Matsumoto, with the apparatus of Uchida, in order to control the ejection/printing as desired, as taught by Matsumoto (¶0106).
With regard to Claim 14, Uchida further discloses wherein the optical measurement sensor is a movement measurement sensor that generates measurement values related to movement of two axes orthogonal to each other (Figs. 1-2; ¶0022; distance detection sensor 204; recording medium 203, x and y directions), however Uchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the event detection unit detects, as the event related to the drawing state, that a measurement value related to movement in the conveyance direction determined from the measurement values of the two axes measured by the movement measurement sensor is out of a predetermined range.
The secondary reference of Matsumoto discloses wherein the event detection unit detects, as the event related to the drawing state, that a measurement value related to movement in the conveyance direction determined from the measurement values of the two axes measured by the movement measurement sensor is out of a predetermined range (¶0058-0059; 0101; 0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the event out of the predetermined range of Matsumoto, with the apparatus of Uchida, in order to control the ejection/printing as desired, as taught by Matsumoto (¶0106).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Clam 17 is that applicants claimed invention includes an inkjet printer having a sensor housing that accommodates the optical measurement sensor; a light-transmitting cover that is provided on the sensor housing and transmits the light received by the optical measurement sensor; and a cleaning unit that cleans the light-transmitting cover when the event detection unit detects the event based on a decrease in an amount of the received light of the optical measurement sensor. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights