DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. Claims 1-11 have been provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 plus 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 1, 1 plus 7, 13, 14, 15, and 16 respectively of copending Application No. 18/887,065 (reference application) in further view of JP052’ (JP Pub: 2019119052) and Niino (US Pub: 2018/0099510)’s teaching on increasing the number of non-discharge nozzles in a part of the first gradation portion. The combined teaching of all would have made the claimed invention obvious for better discharge coverage and optimal control. See detailed rejection below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP052’ (JP Pub: 2019119052) and in further view of Niino (US Pub: 2018/0099510).
Regarding claim 1, JP052’ teaches: A liquid discharge apparatus comprising: a liquid discharge head including multiple nozzles to discharge two or more types of droplets each having a different discharge amount from the multiple nozzles onto a medium to form an image having gradation of density in accordance with an input gradation value input to the liquid discharge apparatus [page 6: p05; page 7: p01; page 9: p04], the input gradation value increasing from a first gradation portion to a second gradation portion higher than the first gradation portion [page 10: p04]; and circuitry configured to: cause the liquid discharge head to selectively discharge the largest droplets of the two or more types of droplets from the multiple nozzles in the second gradation portion of the gradation value and cause the liquid discharge head to decrease a number of non-discharge nozzles that do not discharge droplets in the multiple nozzles from the first gradation portion to the second gradation portion while increasing the number of non-discharge nozzles in a part of the first gradation portion [page 9: p05; page 10: p04, p05; page 11: p01; page 15: p02].
JP052’ teaches that proportion of large droplets increases as density gradation value increases. For a redundant teaching in the same field of endeavor, Niino teaches: cause the liquid discharge head to decrease a number of non-discharge nozzles that do not discharge droplets in the multiple nozzles from the first gradation portion to the second gradation portion while increasing the number of non-discharge nozzles in a part of the first gradation portion [page 18: table 6]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to select the largest droplets for the highest gradation and adjust number of non-discharge nozzles from the first gradation to second gradation for better discharge coverage and optimal result.
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. JP052’ does not specify gradation range. In the same field of endeavor, Niino teaches: The liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry controls the liquid discharge head to discharge the smallest droplets of the two or more types of droplets only when the gradation value is equal to or smaller than 13% [page 18: table 6 (15% or lower for small droplet)]. Therefore, given Niino’s teaching on smallest droplets on 15% or lower gradation, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to use the smallest droplets for gradation 15% or less such as a nearby value of 13% per design choice.
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. JP052’ does not specify gradation range. In the same field of endeavor, Niino teaches: The liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry causes the liquid discharge head to: selectively discharge three or more types of droplets each having a different discharge amount from the multiple nozzles; and discharge second smallest droplets among the three or more types of droplets from the multiple nozzles when the gradation value is equal to or smaller than 15% [page 18: table 6 (Large, middle, and small droplets (15% or lower for small droplet)]. Therefore, given Niino’s teaching on smallest droplets on 15% or lower gradation, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to use the smallest droplets for gradation 15% or less per design choice.
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. JP052’ teaches that the system can decrease the number of discharged dots while increasing the amount of each droplet. In the same field of endeavor, Niino teaches: The liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry causes the liquid discharge head to decrease the number of non-discharge nozzles from the second gradation portion to the first gradation portion at least in a part having the input gradation value of equal to or smaller than 20% [page 18: table 6]. Niino teaches controlling gradation by changing the respective amounts of small droplets and non-discharge positions. Niino uses 20 small droplet position and 80 non-discharge positions at 20% gradation, while using 85 non-discharge position at 15%. Niino identifies two control variables: small droplet discharge and non-discharge to obtain a desired lower gradation. Therefore, it would have been obvious alternatives to adjust one of the known variables: decrease small droplet discharge, increase non-discharge, or adjust both in opposite or combined directions for desired density.
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. JP052’ further teaches: The liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry controls the liquid discharge head to discharge at least two or more types of droplets each having different size from the multiple nozzles in a portion of the input gradation value in which the number of the non-discharge nozzles decreases from the first gradation portion to the second gradation portion in the input gradation value [page 9: p04, page 10: p04].
Regarding claim 8, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. JP052’ further teaches: A liquid discharge device comprising: the liquid discharge head according to claim 1; and at least one of a head tank, a carriage, a supply mechanism, a maintenance mechanism, and a main-scanning moving mechanism [page 4: p05; page 5: p05].
Regarding claim 9, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. JP052’ further teaches: A liquid discharge apparatus comprising: the liquid discharge head according to claim 1; and circuitry configured to drive the liquid discharge head to discharge liquid [page 6: p05; page 7:p01].
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with JP052’s further teaching on: A non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method [page 7: p05].
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP052’ (JP Pub: 2019119052) and Niino (US Pub: 2018/0099510); and in further view of JP534’ (JP Pub: 2018158534).
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. JP052’ further teaches: The liquid discharge apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry controls the liquid discharge head to linearly increase total discharge amount of two or more types of droplets discharged from the multiple nozzles with respect to an increase in the input gradation value input to the liquid discharge apparatus [page 10: p04].
JP052’ in view of Niino teaches increasing discharge amount with respect to increasing of gradation value. JP534’ in the same field of endeavor specifies linear relationship in [page 15: p03]. Therefore, the combined teaching of all would have made linear relationship between total discharge amount and increasing of gradation value obvious to a skilled in the art for easy configuration.
Contact
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights