DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 8, “(INSPECTION PERIOD [D13])” appears to be duplicated. It is understood that the lower instance should be “(NON-IMAGE FORMING PERIOD)” as described in paragraph 0058.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0058, line 13, “standby period [D0]” should be “standby period [D1]”.
In paragraph 0061, line 29, “standby period [D2]” should be “standby period [D1]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
In paragraph 0030, line 18, “the pulse wave” is unclear. It is understood by the examiner that is may be a drive signal waveform. It is suggested to note the pulse wave as the drive signal waveform in the previous paragraph.
In paragraph 0048, line 3, “into a voltage to output the voltage” is wordy, and it is suggested to remove “to output the voltage”.
In paragraphs 0052, line 20, and paragraph 0069, line 37, “the minimum ejection interval” is partly unclear as to what it defines based on plain language. Because “a minimum ejection interval” is further claimed in claim 7, line 41, further clarification is suggested. By comparison to the machine translation of the publication of the priority document, JP 2025079919 A, “the minimum ejection interval” is understood as “the minimum interval between ink ejection” (at para. 0049, 0066).
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of nozzles”. This same recitation is in claim 1 from which claim 12 depends on, therefore claim 12 will be examined such that “a” is “the”.
Claim 15 recites “An ink ejecting device” and “a plurality of nozzles”. These same recitations are in claim 1 from which claim 15 depends on, therefore claim 15 will be examined such that each recitation starts with “the” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Suggestions
In claim 7, line 41, “a minimum ejection interval” will be examined as “a minimum interval between ink ejection” as noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation of, “the ink heads” has no antecedent basis in the claim or those it depends on. There is a recitation of “an ink head provided with the plurality of nozzles” in claim 4, but it is unclear as to how claim 6 would be interpreted as dependent on present claim 4.
Further, the present claim language of “a variation in the temperature of a plurality of the ink heads at which the image forming periods end substantially at the same time falls within a predetermined range” is unclear and not well understood. Therefore, claim 6 will not be further examined at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se.
Presently, claim 14 recites, “A storage medium storing… inspecting program…”. It is recommended that the claim is amended to recite “A non-transitory storage medium storing… inspecting program…”. The claim will further be examined based on the recommended recitation.
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) 1-3, 8-10, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 20180370227 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hayashi, in view of Shinkawa (US 20150070420 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14, Hayashi teaches an ink ejection inspecting device (controller 40; Fig. 3), a method (Fig. 7-9), and programs stored on a non-transitory storage medium (memory 50; Fig. 3) read by a computer (CPU 41 of controller 40; at para. 0052; Fig. 3) that inspects an ejection state of inks from a plurality of nozzles (detects malfunctions of nozzles 27; at para. 0052) provided in an ink ejecting device (image recorder 20; at para. 0045; Fig. 1), the ink ejection inspecting device comprising:
a hardware processor (controller 40 includes a processor; at para. 0043),
wherein the hardware processor applies an inspection voltage for an ink ejection inspection to each of the nozzles after a standby period ends (“cyclic driving voltage pattern for inspection” for S104; at para. 0107; Fig. 8), the standby period being from after an image forming period during which a drive voltage for image formation is applied to each of the nozzles ends until an effect of the application of the drive voltage to each of the nozzles converges (“A predetermined standby time tans before inspection of the nozzles may be the actual time until the voltage Vb sufficiently approaches the voltage V1 and the fluctuation is within a predetermined range”; at para. 0082; a predetermined range of fluctuation is understood as a convergence of a drive waveform); and
determines an ink ejection state of each of the nozzles (defective nozzle detection with malfunction detection; at para. 0104; Fig. 7-9).
Hayashi does not explicitly teach the device as using residual vibration of each of the nozzles obtained by applying the inspection voltage as the basis for detection, however Hayashi does note that determination of ejection state on a basis of residual has been done before.
Shinkawa specifically teaches an ink ejection inspecting device wherein the ink ejection state of each of the nozzles is detected on a basis of residual vibration of each of the nozzles obtained by applying the inspection voltage (at para. 0098; Fig. 8, 10, 12, 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink ejection inspection device of Hayashi to use residual vibration of each of the nozzles obtained by applying the inspection voltage as the basis for detection for the purpose of determining the reason for a malfunction including bubbles, drying, and paper dust as taught by Shinkawa (at para. 0125, 0127, 0129; Fig. 10, 12, 14).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the hardware processor
determines whether the standby period has ended for each of the nozzles on the basis of the residual vibration of each of the nozzles obtained by applying the drive voltage (standby period tans is determined based on when the applied voltage Vb approaches voltage V1; at para. 0082; driving voltage has a cyclic pattern; at para. 0129; therefore, it is understood that initial voltage Vb attenuates to a residual voltage [vibration] for each nozzle), and
applies the inspection voltage to a nozzle for which it is determined that the standby period has ended among the nozzles (inspection is performed after standby period tans has ended; at para. 0082; in S104 for inspection, voltage is applied to the target piezoelectric element; at para. 0107; Fig. 8; each piezoelectric element 26 has a respective nozzle 27 of a plurality; at para. 0055).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 2, and Hayashi further teaches wherein
the hardware processor determines that the standby period has ended when an amplitude of the residual vibration of each of the nozzles obtained by applying the drive voltage falls within a predetermined range (fluctuation of the residual voltage [vibration] falls within a predetermined range in order to determine time of pre-inspection standby period tans; at para. 0082).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the hardware processor
in a non-image forming period between the image forming period and a next image forming period, applies an inspection voltage for an ink ejection inspection to each of the nozzles (gap M1 and test chart C2 form a non-image forming period wherein target images F1 and F2 are not formed; at para. 0090, 0091; Fig. 6; inspection including application of inspection voltage (S402, S104) and printing of test chart (S404) occur before a target image is printed based on the conveyance direction and order of step; Fig. 6-8).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the standby period includes a switching period required for a switching process from an output waveform of the drive voltage to an output waveform of the inspection voltage (voltage VH1 is an ejection voltage and voltage VH2 is a non-ejection voltage; at para. 0066; Fig. 4; the non-ejection voltage/waveform is used for inspection; at para. 0132; therefore, it is understood when going from an image forming period with ejection to a standby period and inspection period with no ejection, the output is switched from a driving (ejection) voltage to an inspection (non-ejection) voltage).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the hardware processor applies the inspection voltage to a nozzle selected from among the plurality of nozzles (one target piezoelectric elements is chosen (S103), and the process is repeated for all target piezoelectric elements (S108); at para. 0107, 0109; Fig. 8; each piezoelectric element 26 has a respective nozzle 27 of a plurality; at para. 0055).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi further teaches the ink ejecting device comprising:
an ink head provided with the plurality of nozzles that eject an ink by application of a voltage (ejection heads 211 each have nozzle openings 27a; at para. 0048; Fig. 2; each piezoelectric element 26 has a respective nozzle 27 of a plurality; at para. 0055; ejection voltage VH1 is applied to piezoelectric elements; at para. 0061);
and Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 15, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the ink head has a configuration in which the plurality of nozzles are arranged in at least one direction (nozzles are arranges in predetermined intervals in the width direction; at para. 0048; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 16, and Hayashi further teaches the ink ejecting device as further comprising:
a head unit in which a plurality of the ink heads are arranged in the one direction (head unit 21k has a plurality of ejection heads 211 arranged in the width direction; at para. 0048; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi further teaches an image forming apparatus (inkjet recorder 1; at para. 0034; Fig. 1) comprising:
a medium conveyance device that conveys a recording medium on which an image is formed with inks ejected from the plurality of nozzles in the ink ejecting device in a predetermined conveyance direction relative to the ink ejecting device (conveyor 10 moves recording medium P in a conveying direction relative to image recorder 20; at para. 0035, 0036; Fig. 1).
and Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 18, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the plurality of nozzles in the ink ejecting device are arranged over a conveyance width direction perpendicular to a conveyance direction of the recording medium (nozzles 27a are arranged in the width direction perpendicular to the conveying direction; at para. 0048; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 19, and Hayashi further teaches wherein a plurality of nozzle arrays in which the plurality of nozzles are arranged in the conveyance width direction are arranged in the conveyance direction (nozzles 27a are grouped in arrays based on ejection heads 211 which are also arranged in the conveyance direction; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5, 7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi modified by Shinkawa as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Komatsu et al. (US 20110050775 A1), hereinafter referred to as Komatsu.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, and Hayashi teaches wherein the hardware processor applies the inspection voltage to a nozzle for which it is determined that the standby period has ended among the nozzles (inspection is performed after standby period tans has ended; at para. 0082; in S104 for inspection, voltage is applied to the target piezoelectric element; at para. 0107; Fig. 8; each piezoelectric element 26 has a respective nozzle 27 of a plurality; at para. 0055).
However, neither Hayashi nor Shinkawa teaches wherein the standby period end is determined for each of the nozzles on the basis of a temperature of an ink head provided with the plurality of nozzles.
Komatsu teaches determination for a standby period for each nozzle (repeat period T for inspection time for one nozzle before another nozzle may be inspected; at para. 0082, 0096; therefore, each nozzle has a standby period which is the inspection time of the previous nozzle), and that the standby period is able to be determined based on residual vibration convergence, and more specifically the residual vibration is dependent on temperature (at para. 0094-0097; Fig. 8B). Therefore, it is understood that a determination for a standby period may be based on the temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink ejection inspection device of Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa such that the standby period is determined on the basis of temperature for the purpose of at least preventing overlap of residual vibration between inspections in the case of a low temperature as taught by Komatsu (at para. 0096).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa and Komatsu teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 4. It not explicitly taught by the applied references that the hardware processor determines that the standby period has ended when the temperature of the ink head falls within a predetermined range, however because Komatsu teaches the direct relation between temperature and residual vibration, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize temperature and a predetermined range associated with it as an art recognized substitute known for the same purpose, that is determining an appropriate standby period (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, however neither Hayashi nor Shinkawa explicitly teaches wherein the standby period includes a minimum interval between ink ejection from each of the nozzles.
Komatsu teaches a standby period for each nozzle (repeat period T for inspection time for one nozzle before another nozzle may be inspected; at para. 0082, 0096; therefore, each nozzle has a standby period which is at least the inspection time of the previous nozzle). Further, a drive waveform is applied to a nozzle (driving signal COM; at para. 0079; Fig. 6A-C) during a standby period at approximately the same time in the period for each nozzle. Therefore, it would be understood that the length of the standby period would be at least the same as the length of time between ejections by application of drive waveform.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink ejection inspection device of Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa such that the standby period includes a minimum interval between ink ejection from each of the nozzles for the purpose of at least preventing overlap of residual vibration between inspections in the as taught by Komatsu (at para. 0096).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the hardware processor applies the inspection voltage to a nozzle among the plurality of nozzles (one target piezoelectric elements is chosen (S103), and the process is repeated for all target piezoelectric elements (S108); at para. 0107, 0109; Fig. 8; each piezoelectric element 26 has a respective nozzle 27 of a plurality; at para. 0055).
Neither Hayashi nor Shinkawa explicitly teaches wherein the hardware processor applies the inspection voltage to the nozzles in order from a nozzle for which the standby period has ended among the plurality of nozzles.
Komatsu teaches a standby period for each nozzle wherein the next nozzle is not inspected until after the standby period ends (repeat period T for inspection time for one nozzle before another nozzle may be inspected; at para. 0082, 0096; therefore, each nozzle has a standby period which is at least the inspection time of the previous nozzle). Further, a drive waveform is applied to a nozzle after a standby period (driving signal COM; at para. 0079; Fig. 6A-C; the drive waveform is for inspection by ejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink ejection inspection device of Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa such that the nozzles are inspected in order such that the subsequent nozzles are only inspected after a standby period has ended with a previous nozzle for the purpose of at least preventing overlap of residual vibration between inspections in the as taught by Komatsu (at para. 0096).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa teaches the ink ejection inspecting device according to claim 1, and Hayashi further teaches wherein the ink ejecting device includes a plurality of nozzle arrays in which the plurality of nozzles are arranged (nozzles 27a are grouped in arrays based on ejection heads 211; Fig. 2).
Hayashi further teaches that a single nozzle or multiple nozzles may be inspected at a time, and in a case to save time in which multiple nozzles are inspected (understood that it could be a whole array), upon detection of an abnormality, each nozzle from the defective group may be checked individually (at para. 0110). Neither Hayashi nor Shinkawa explicitly teaches wherein the hardware processor determines the end of the standby period and applies the inspection voltage in order from the nozzles in a nozzle array for which the standby period has ended among the plurality of nozzle arrays.
Komatsu teaches a standby period for each nozzle wherein the next nozzle is not inspected until after the standby period ends (repeat period T for inspection time for one nozzle before another nozzle may be inspected; at para. 0082, 0096; therefore, each nozzle has a standby period which is at least the inspection time of the previous nozzle). Further, a drive waveform is applied to a nozzle after a standby period (driving signal COM; at para. 0079; Fig. 6A-C; the drive waveform is for inspection by ejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink ejection inspection device of Hayashi as modified by Shinkawa such that the arrays of nozzles are inspected in order such that the subsequent nozzle arrays are only inspected after a standby period has ended with previous arrays for the purpose of at least preventing overlap of residual vibration between inspections in the as taught by Komatsu (at para. 0096).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murase et al. (US 20200047491 A1) teaches an ink ejection inspection process (Fig. 12A-B) wherein a standby period (buffer area) is provided between an image forming period (actual image area for mode switchover) and inspection period (inspection area). Further, the standby period is noted to be able to be shortened based on drive pulse (at para. 0126).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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 X RODRIGUEZ can be reached at (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 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.
01 July 2026
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights