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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Nozzle 1-1, nozzle 1-2, nozzle 2-1, nozzle 2-2.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because three of the four claimed nozzles are not shown (1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2). All of the nozzles in the figures look identical. Please clarify. See, 35 USC §112 rejection below. 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, it is unclear what the 1-1, 2-1, and 2-2 nozzles represent. Do the numbers correlate to the nozzle sizes, nozzle groups, droplet ratio, or configuration/arrangement of nozzles?
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 12-14, as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2007/0242098 to Sudo et al. “Sudo” as modified by KR20230089633A to Kim et al. “Kim.”
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With regard to Claims 1 and 13, as best understood, Sudo teaches (Figs. 4-6) a printing apparatus (1) comprising:
a first head (41A) including first nozzles (U#1-U#180) facing the stage along the first direction; and
a second head (41B) spaced apart from the first head (41A) and including second nozzles (L#1-L#180) facing the stage along the first direction,
wherein the first nozzles include 1-1 nozzles (U#1, U#2) overlapping the second nozzles (L#179, L#180) in the second direction and 1-2 nozzles (U#3, U#4) adjacent to the 1-1 nozzles,
the second nozzles include 2-1 nozzles (L#179, L#180) overlapping the first nozzles (U#1, U#2) in the second direction and 2-2 nozzles (L#177, L#178) adjacent to the 2-1 nozzles, the 1-1 nozzles are configured to gradually decrease an ink discharge amount as the 1-1 nozzles approach the 2-2 nozzles, and the 2-1 nozzles are configured to gradually decrease an ink discharge amount as the 2-1 nozzles approach the 1-2 nozzles [0123-0125].
Sudo does not teach a stage including a plane extending in a first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction.
However, Kim teaches a stage (STG) including a plane extending in a first direction (DR1) and a second direction (DR2) crossing the first direction [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sudo with the stage as taught by Kim to hold the material securely in position as the printheads move across applying ink.
With regard to Claims 2 and 14, as best understood, Sudo teaches wherein the ink discharge amount of the 1-1 nozzles is greater than the ink discharge amount of the 2-1 nozzles (fig. 13).
With regard to Claims 5-6, as best understood, Sudo teaches wherein the 1-1 nozzles are configured to linearly decrease the ink discharge amount as the 1-1 nozzles approaches the 2-2 nozzles (fig. 11).
With regard to Claim 7, as best understood, Sudo teaches wherein the ink discharge amount of the 1-2 and the ink discharge amount of the 2-2 nozzles are equal (fig. 12).
With regard to Claim 12, as best understood, Sudo teaches wherein an ink discharged by the first nozzles and an ink discharged by the second nozzles include a different type of materials [0163-0166].
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers (or paragraphs or figures) in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. The specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim. Other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 8-11, and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of Claims 3-4 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the first nozzles are configured to start to discharge ink before the second nozzles. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claims 8-11 is the inclusion of the limitations wherein the first nozzles are configured to start to discharge ink before the second nozzles. It is these features found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claims 15-16 is the inclusion a method steps wherein discharging ink using the first nozzles starts before discharging ink using the second nozzles. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claims 17-19 is the inclusion a method steps wherein the ink discharge amount of the 1-2 and the ink discharge amount of the 2-2 nozzles are equal, and an ink discharge amount of a 1-1 nozzle closest to the 1-2 nozzles among the 1-1 nozzles is equal to or greater than 80 percent and equal to or less than 100 percent of the ink discharge amount of the 1-2 nozzles. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of Claim 20 is the inclusion a method steps wherein an ink discharge amount of a 2-1 nozzle closest to the 1-2 nozzles among the 2-1 nozzles is equal to or greater than 0 percent and equal to or less than 20 percent of the ink discharge amount of the 2-2 nozzles. It is these steps found in the claim(s) which have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0097197 discloses a method for ink jet printing with light-curing ink, which includes the steps of printing a first ink dot of a color, irradiating the first ink dot with light, printing a second ink dot with the same color and which at least partially overlaps with the first ink dot, and irradiating the second ink dot with light.
US 20180257389 A1 discloses A printer includes a first ink head that ejects a first ink, a second ink head that ejects a second ink, a first dot controller that controls a dot size after curing of the ejected first ink, and a second dot controller that controls a dot size after curing of the ejected second ink. The second ink is ejected over the first ink on a recording medium, and the second ink is caused to have a dot size that is larger than a dot size of the first ink.
Communication with the PTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON A POLK whose telephone number is (571)270-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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 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.
SHARON A. POLK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/Sharon Polk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights