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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Murase (US 2021/0252851).
With regard to claim 1 Murase discloses a recording apparatus (1A) [Para. 0044] comprising:
a record head (30) [Para. 0048] having a plurality of record elements [nozzles; Para. 0049] for ejecting a recording agent [liquid ink; Para. 0048] and configured to record an image on a record medium (P) [Para. 0044] by driving the plurality of record elements;
a drive control unit (15A) configured to drive the plurality of record elements while the plurality of record elements are divided into a plurality of blocks [Fig. 14] to vary driving timing for each block [Para. 0100, 0195-0196];
a generation unit (70) [Para. 0141] configured to generate drive-recording data [various signals; Para. 0141] in which an ejection inspection pattern for inspecting ejection states of the record elements is reflected in recording data generated based on image data; and
an inspection unit (9A/9B) [Para. 0090] configured to inspect an ejection state of a record element to be inspected driven based on the ejection inspection pattern [captures printed image while a printing operation is performed; Para. 0091],
wherein the generation unit generates the drive-recording data so that the drive control unit does not drive a record element other than the record element to be inspected in a block that includes the record element to be inspected [one nozzle is selectively caused to perform discharge; Para. 0193, See also Para. 0197].
With regard to claim 2, Murase discloses wherein the generation unit generates the drive-recording data so that the drive control unit does not drive all record elements in a block driven following the block that includes the record element to be inspected [one nozzle is selectively caused to perform discharge; Para. 0193, See also Para. 0197].
With regard to claim 3, Murase discloses wherein the generation unit generates the drive-recording data by reflecting an ejection inspection pattern for inspecting an ejection state of a predetermined record element in recording data, and after a specific cycle, generates the drive-recording data by reflecting an ejection inspection pattern for inspecting an ejection state of a record element different from the predetermined record element in the recording data [drive pulse is selected and used to drive the printhead to print the inspection pattern and based on inspection data, discharge ink under a second drive condition different from the first Para. 0212-0213].
With regard to claim 6, Murase discloses wherein based on a change in a temperature of a record element driven based on the ejection inspection pattern, the inspection unit inspects an ejection state of the record element [Para. 0124].
With regard to claim 7, Murase also discloses wherein the record head has a nozzle array (114) [Para. 0123] including a plurality of the record elements [Para. 0123].
With regard to claim 8, Murase also discloses wherein the record head has a plurality of the nozzle arrays [Para. 0123].
With regard to claim 15, Murase also discloses further comprising a cap (12) [recovery unit; Para. 0053; Fig. 3], wherein the record head has an ejection port surface [ink discharge surface; Para. 0055] on which an ejection port for ejecting ink is provided corresponding to a record element, the cap covers the ejection port surface [Para. 0053], and the inspection unit performs, in addition to inspection using the drive-recording data, inspection of the ejection state of the record element to be inspected driven by driving the record element so as to eject ink to the cap [Para. 0053].
With regard to claim 16, Murase discloses a method of controlling a recording apparatus (1A) [Para. 0044] comprising a record head (30) [Para. 0048] having a plurality of record elements [nozzles; Para. 0049] for ejecting a recording agent [liquid ink; Para. 0048] and configured to record an image on a record medium (P) [Para. 0044] by driving the plurality of record elements, the method comprising:
driving the plurality of record elements while the plurality of record elements are divided into a plurality of blocks [Fig. 14] to vary driving timing for each block [Para. 0100, 0195-0196];
generating a drive-recording data [various signals; Para. 0141] in which an ejection inspection pattern for inspecting ejection states of the record elements is reflected in recording data generated based on image data [Para. 0141]; and
inspecting an ejection state of a record element to be inspected driven based on the ejection inspection pattern [an inspection unit (9A/9B) captures printed image while a printing operation is performed; Para. 0090-0091],
wherein in the generating, the drive-recording data is generated so that the drive control unit does not drive a record element other than the record element to be inspected in a block that includes the record element to be inspected [one nozzle is selectively caused to perform discharge; Para. 0193, See also Para. 0197].
With regard to claim 17, Murase discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (HC1) [host apparatus; Para. 0095] storing a program which functions in a recording apparatus (1A) [Para. 0044] comprising a record head (30) [Para. 0048] having a plurality of record elements [nozzles; Para. 0049] for ejecting a recording agent [liquid ink; Para. 0048] and configured to record an image on a record medium (P) [Para. 0044] by driving the plurality of record elements and causes the recording apparatus to function as:
a drive control unit (15A) configured to drive the plurality of record elements while the plurality of record elements are divided into a plurality of blocks [Fig. 14] to vary driving timing for each block [Para. 0100, 0195-0196];
a generation unit (70) [Para. 0141] configured to generate drive-recording data [various signals; Para. 0141] in which an ejection inspection pattern for inspecting ejection states of the record elements is reflected in recording data generated based on image data; and
an inspection unit (9A/9B) [Para. 0090] configured to inspect an ejection state of a record element to be inspected driven based on the ejection inspection pattern [captures printed image while a printing operation is performed; Para. 0091],
wherein the generation unit generates the drive-recording data so that the drive control unit does not drive a record element other than the record element to be inspected in a block that includes the record element to be inspected [one nozzle is selectively caused to perform discharge; Para. 0193, See also Para. 0197].
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) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase (US 2021/0252851).
With regard to claim 4, Murase discloses a specific cycle of columns in an image [Fig. 14].
Murase does not disclose wherein the specific cycle is 50 columns.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a specific cycle of 50 columns, since it has been held that discovering optimum value of a result effect variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 5, Murase discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Murase does not disclose wherein the specific cycle is about 1mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the specific cycle to be about 1 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase (US 2021/0252851) as applied to claim 8 above, and in view of Cabello (US 2019/0143695).
With regard to claim 9, Murase discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Murase does not disclose wherein in a case where the inspection unit determines that the ejection state of the record element to be inspected is abnormal, the record element to be inspected is not driven during recording of an image.
However, Cabello teaches based on detection result of a failed nozzle, the failed nozzle is replaced by another nozzle to perform a print job [Claim 7].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize not driving the recording element to be inspected during recording of an image as taught by Cabello into Murase for the purpose of monitoring an improving nozzle health in a printer.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase (US 2021/0252851) as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Fukasawa (US 2013/0329144).
With regard to claim 10, Murase discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Murase does not disclose further comprising a complementing unit configured to complement, in a case where the inspection unit determines that the ejection state of the record element to be inspected is abnormal, the record element to be inspected using a record element of another nozzle array.
However, Fukasawa teaches a control unit to perform complementary printing by a nozzle array different from a nozzle array in which discharge failure has occurred, in a case where it is determined that there a second state in which it is estimated that discharge failure has occurred in all the plurality of images or a third state in which it is estimated that images in which discharge failure has occurred and images in which no discharge failure has occurred coexist [Claim 7; See also Paras. 0019-0020].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a complementing unit to complement a record element to be inspected using a record element of another nozzle array as taught by Fukasawa into Murase for the purpose of efficiently sorting printed products into non-defective ones and defective ones when a discharge failure occurs during a printing operation.
With regard to claim 11, Fukasawa also teaches wherein after the inspection unit completes inspection of all record elements of the record head, the complementing unit reflects results of the inspection of all of the record elements in a complement [Paras. 0013-0015].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a complementing unit to reflect results of the inspection of all of the record elements in a complement as taught by Fukasawa into Murase for the purpose of notifying the user of the state of all record elements.
With regard to claim 12, Fukasawa also teaches wherein the complementing unit reflects inspection results by the inspection unit in a complement every several pages [user is notified of the number of pages in the different states; Para. 0144].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a complementing unit to reflect inspection result by the inspection unit in a complement every several pages as taught by Fukasawa into Murase, for the purpose of having the user easily identify the results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase (US 2021/0252851) as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Nishikori (US 9,409,390)
With regard to claim 14, Murase does not disclose wherein the inspection unit does not target, for inspection, a nozzle outside a width of the record medium on which an image is recorded.
However, Nishikori teaches a printhead (11) having a long print width, nozzles can be suppressed simplify the drive circuit of the printhead [Col. 22; lines 64-67 – Col. 23; lines 1-2].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not target, for inspection, a nozzle outside a width of the recording medium on which an image is recorded as taught by Nishikori in view of Murase for the purpose of reducing the cost of the drive circuit of the printhead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 13 is the inclusion of the ejection inspection pattern is generated so that a record element that performs ejection at same timing of another chip is targeted to be inspected. It is this limitation(s) found in the claims, as it is claimed in the combination of that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM EST.
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 571-272-5960. 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.
/TRACEY M MCMILLION/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights