DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each type of ink” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2014/0002521) in view of Araki et al. (2025/0108613).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-11, Kim teaches a liquid-discharge-head, method and non-transitory storage medium for driving device for driving a liquid discharge head including a plurality of nozzles to discharge liquid according to a drive signal input to the liquid discharge head
processing circuitry (fig. 1) configured to:
generate the drive signal based on voltage information on a voltage applied to a piezoelectric element of the nozzles and output the drive signal (fig. 10) to the liquid discharge head; and
acquire, based on droplet speed information acquired from a droplet speed measuring device that measures a discharge speed of a droplet discharged from the liquid discharge head and the voltage information (fig. 3, S50), appropriate voltage information on a voltage at which the discharge speed falls within a predetermined range (fig. 3, S80); and
a memory configured to store the appropriate voltage information in association with identification information of the nozzles and a drive frequency of the nozzles, the identification information including portion information based on a portion position of each nozzle within a nozzle row of the plurality of nozzles (see fig. 3, [0021], note that there is necessarily memory that stores the determination of the flow chart, and not that because each nozzle is evaluated individually, the memory necessarily knows where each nozzle is located among the plurality of nozzles, and this information can be said to be “portion information based on a portion position”),
the processing circuitry configured to acquire, from the memory, the appropriate voltage information corresponding to the identification information and the drive frequency and output the drive signal based on the appropriate voltage information ([0021], [0040], Note that specific drive voltages, drive signals and drive frequencies are saved for specific types of graphic image data, and thus the parameters determined by the flow chart of Figure 3 are saved to a memory and used for printing the next time that particular type of graphic image data is generated).
Kim does not teach wherein the memory is configured to store a plurality of drive frequencies and wherein the processing circuitry acquires a selected one of the plurality of drive frequencies. Araki teaches wherein nozzles at center and end portions of a nozzle row have different drive frequencies (Araki, [0077]-[0092], figs. 6-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different driving frequencies for center and end portions of nozzle rows, as disclosed by Araki, in the device disclosed by Kim because doing so would allow for overlapping head chips, which would result in the ability for higher resolution printing.
Upon combination of Araki with Kim, the resultant device would have a memory storing both drive voltages and drive frequencies for each nozzle position.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the liquid-discharge-head driving device according to claim 1, wherein the liquid-discharge-head driving device has a normal drive mode and a correction mode, and the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the appropriate voltage information, based on the droplet speed information and the voltage information, in response to transition to the correction mode (fig. 3, [0021], [0040], Note that the normal drive mode is being taken to correspond to printing with the previously set basic waveform/frequency, and the correction mode is being taken to correlate to printing with the varied operating voltage determined in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the liquid-discharge-head driving device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the appropriate voltage information for each of temperatures around the liquid discharge head (see fig. 3, Note that the process can be executed at any and all temperatures, and thus, the information is acquired “for each of temperatures.” Note that the claim does not require that the temperatures are sensed or stored).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the liquid-discharge-head driving device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the appropriate voltage information for each type of ink discharged from the liquid discharge head (see fig. 3, Note that the process is run for all inks used. Note that “each type of ink” has not been defined in any way).
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view Araki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuki (2011/0279500).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Araki teaches liquid-discharge-head driving device according to claim 1. Kim in view of Araki does not teach wherein the liquid discharge head includes a plurality of liquid discharge heads including the liquid discharge head, and the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the appropriate voltage information for each of the plurality of liquid discharge heads. Mitsuki teaches this (Mitsuki, [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multiple heads instead of a single head because doing so would allow for color printing as opposed to just black and white.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Kim in view of Araki teaches the liquid-discharge-head driving system, comprising: the liquid-discharge-head driving device according to claim 1. Kim does not teach a droplet speed measuring device to communicate with the liquid-discharge-head driving device, wherein the droplet speed measuring device includes a camera to move with respect to the liquid discharge head and measure a discharge speed of liquid for each of the nozzles of the liquid discharge head. Mitsuki teaches this (Mitsuki, [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a camera as a speed detection device, as disclosed by Mitsuki, in the device disclosed by Kim in view of Araki because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In other words, because Kim in view of Araki does not go into any detail about how it measures speed, it would have been obvious to one of skill to look to Mitsuki for such a teaching.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights