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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “printing unit,” “scanning unit,” “correction unit,” “generation unit,” and “unit,” in claims 1-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
printing unit – Paragraph 28
scanning unit – Paragraph 26
correction unit –
generation unit – Claim 2, wherein the printing unit contains the generation unit
unit -
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 contain(s) the limitation “correction unit” and “a unit” however, the specification does not mention the term “correction unit” and “a unit.” Although there is support for the steps and processes of correcting and creating, there is a lack of support for each of their respective units. Therefore, one cannot determine the further features of the units besides what is described in the claims. As a result of a 112(f) identification in regards to the units, there needs to be more information to identify what the units comprise of and actions they perform.
The term “relatively low” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low” 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. By having something relatively low can be left up to interpretation. Although this is in relation to the plurality of patches, it still is interpretative what is relatively low for those patches.
The term “relatively low” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low” 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. By having something relatively low can be left up to interpretation. Although this is in relation to the plurality of patches, it still is interpretative what is relatively low for those patches.
The term “relatively large” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively large” 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. By having something relatively large can be left up to interpretation. Although this is in relation to the brightness, it is still unclear what value the brightness would need to be.
The term “relatively small” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively small” 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. By having something relatively small can be left up to interpretation. Although this is in relation to the brightness, it is still unclear what value the brightness would need to be.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nomura (US 2024/0146854).
Regarding Claim 1, Nomura teaches an image processing apparatus (Paragraph 58) comprising:
a printing unit configured to print a chart image including a patch extending in a main scanning direction intersecting a conveyance direction of a sheet (Fig. 6 and Paragraph 135, wherein the patch images are formed which create the chart. The patches extend in the convenance direction as shown) and having a uniform density (Paragraph 136, wherein the patches have uniform density) and a marker for identifying a position in the main scanning direction (Paragraph 182, wherein there is marker to identify patch position);
a scanning unit configured to read the chart image printed by the printing unit (Paragraph 136, wherein the patch is read); and
a correction unit configured to correct reading characteristics of the scanning unit based on reading results read by the scanning unit (Paragraph 106, wherein a correction can be made for the scanner), wherein
the marker is arranged in the main scanning direction based on information relating to unevenness in the main scanning direction of the printing unit or the scanning unit (Paragraph 190, wherein the marker can be associated with the unevenness).
Regarding Claim 9, Nomura further teaches wherein
the scanning unit has a line sensor covering the full width of the sheet (Paragraph 95, wherein there is a line sensor),
the printing unit has a generation unit configured to generate the chart image (Paragraphs 154 and 155, wherein a patch/chart is generated), and
the generation unit:
obtains reading characteristic information indicating a trend of variations of a sensor value at each reading position in the line sensor as information relating to unevenness in the main scanning direction of the scanning unit (Paragraph 109, wherein a variation is detected); and
determines marker positions in the main scanning direction so that a period of unevenness in brightness of the line sensor and an interval between markers in the main scanning direction coincide with each other based on the obtained reading characteristic information (Paragraph 107, wherein brightness is determined).
Regarding Claim 10, Nomura further teaches wherein
the generation unit:
determines a patch width based on the obtained reading characteristic information (Paragraphs 127 and 282, wherein the patch is printed according to the information pertaining to the margin of the medium based on the type and characteristics of the medium, which could be reasonably assumed to be the width); and
determines each position at which the determined patch width is divided uniformly into N portions as a marker position in the main scanning direction (Paragraph 190, wherein the marker can help divide the patch).
Regarding Claim 12, Nomura further teaches wherein
the generation unit determines marker positions by obtaining the reading characteristic information prepared in advance (Paragraph 94, wherein the reading characteristics can be set).
Regarding Claim 13, Nomura further teaches a unit configured to create the reading characteristic information (Paragraph 94, wherein the reading characteristics can be set), wherein
the generation unit determines marker positions by obtaining the created reading characteristic information (Paragraph 107, wherein the marker takes into consideration the reading characteristics).
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2024/0146854) in view of Takesue (US 2023/0166527).
Regarding Claim 2, Nomura further teaches the printing unit has a generation unit configured to generate the chart image (Paragraphs 154 and 155, wherein a patch/chart is generated),
Nomura does not teach wherein
the printing unit has a print head ejecting ink,
and
the generation unit:
obtains positional information on a chip module boundary of a plurality of chip modules configuring the print head as information relating to unevenness in the main scanning direction of the printing unit; and
determines each position corresponding to a chip module boundary as a marker position in the main scanning direction based on the obtained positional information.
Takesue does teach wherein
the printing unit has a print head ejecting ink (Paragraph 99 and 100, wherein there is a print head to print ink), and
the generation unit:
obtains positional information on a chip module boundary of a plurality of chip modules configuring the print head as information relating to unevenness in the main scanning direction of the printing unit (Paragraph 254, wherein the positional information is obtained corresponding to the boundary related to the chip corresponding to the heads); and
determines each position corresponding to a chip module boundary as a marker position in the main scanning direction based on the obtained positional information (Paragraph 159, wherein there is a marker to align the nozzles, heads).
Nomura and Takesue are combinable because they both deal with creating patches for printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Nomura with the teachings of Takesue for the purpose of correcting density-unevenness with respect to nozzles while not lowering image quality or productivity (Takesue: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 3, Nomura further teaches wherein
the generation unit:
determines a patch width based on a width of the sheet (Paragraphs 127 and 282, wherein the patch is printed according to the information pertaining to the margin of the medium based on the type and characteristics of the medium, which could be reasonably assumed to be the width); and
further determines positions corresponding to both a left end and a right end of a patch with a determined patch width as a marker position in the main scanning direction (Paragraph 135, wherein the start and end positions are determined with a marker).
Regarding Claim 5,Takesue further teaches wherein
the generation unit:
determines, based on a width of the sheet, a patch width so that the left end position of a chip module located on the leftmost side among a plurality of chip modules configuring the print head and the left end position of the patch coincide with each other and the right end position of a chip module located on the rightmost side and the right end position of the patch coincide with each other (Paragraphs 159 and 321, wherein the marker is adjusted based on the width of the recording paper in line with the printheads); and
determines, based on the obtained positional information, each position in the patch, which corresponds to a chip module boundary in the plurality of chip modules, as a marker position in the main scanning direction (Paragraphs 159 and 254, wherein the positional information is obtained corresponding to the boundary related to the chip corresponding to the heads).
Nomura and Takesue are combinable because they both deal with creating patches for printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Nomura with the teachings of Takesue for the purpose of correcting density-unevenness with respect to nozzles while not lowering image quality or productivity (Takesue: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Takesue further teaches wherein
the generation unit determines a patch width so that the left end position of the patch with the determined patch width and the left end position of the chip module located on the leftmost side coincide with each other and the right end position of the patch with the determined patch width and the right end position of the chip module located on the rightmost side coincide with each other (Paragraphs 159 and 321, wherein the marker is adjusted based on the width of the recording paper in line with the printheads).
Nomura and Takesue are combinable because they both deal with creating patches for printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Nomura with the teachings of Takesue for the purpose of correcting density-unevenness with respect to nozzles while not lowering image quality or productivity (Takesue: Paragraph 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Nomura further teaches wherein
the generation unit generates a chart image so that the size of each area on a patch becomes uniform, which is obtained by separating the patch at determined marker positions (Paragraph 133, wherein the patch is unform).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of A and D-F all relate to density correction patches for printing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights