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 November 20, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, line 5 of the claim recites, “a reference point confirming unit including a reference point generating unit and a reference point confirming unit (emphasis added).” The emphasized elements, as recited, are referred to with the same name or label, but one of the elements comprises the other. These elements are therefore separate elements, and each should be given a unique name or label to differentiate them within the claim.
Additionally, line 7 of the claim recites, “a reference point when measuring discharge dot of chemical solution (emphasis added).” The emphasized portion lacks an article indicating the antecedent basis of the “discharge dot.” An example correction would read, “a reference point when measuring a discharge dot of chemical solution.”
Regarding claim 15, line 2 of the claim recites, “setting a measurement unit used to measure discharge dot of chemical solution (emphasis added).” The emphasized portion lacks an article indicating the antecedent basis of the “discharge dot.” An example correction would read, “setting a measurement unit used to measure a discharge dot of chemical solution.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Regarding claim 6, line 4 of the claim recites, “a maintenance unit that maintenance is performed on the inkjet head (emphasis added).” The emphasized portion lacks clarity regarding the relationship between the maintenance unit and the inkjet head. An example correction to the claim to overcome this rejection would read, “a maintenance unit configured to perform maintenance on the inkjet head.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallazzo et al. (US 20120040490 A1), hereinafter Gallazzo.
Regarding claim 1, Gallazzo teaches an assembly for processing a reference point comprising: a reference point generating unit configured to generate at least two reference points of different sizes having a same central axis at a same position (figs. 3A, 8B, 11B, 11D-E; system 100, alignment mark 1102, outer feature 1110, middle feature 1111, inner feature 1112; ¶[0101], [0113]-[0114]); and a reference point confirming unit configured to confirm both of the at least two reference points using only one in one place (figs. 8B, 10; detector assembly 401, camera 401A; ¶[0115]).
Regarding claim 2, Gallazzo teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the reference point generating unit is configured to generate the at least two reference points to have a same shape (figs. 3A, 8B, 11B, 11D-E; system 100, alignment mark 1102, outer feature 1110, middle feature 1111, inner feature 1112; ¶[0101], [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 4, Gallazzo teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the reference point confirming unit includes a vision camera, and different sizes for the at least two reference points are within a range satisfying a field of view (“FOV”) of the vision camera (figs. 3D, 4A, 8B, 10; detector assembly 401, camera 401A, viewing area 122; ¶[0053], [0058]-[0059], [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Gallazzo teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the reference point generating unit is configured to generate the at least two reference points from below the reference point confirming unit toward the reference point confirming unit, and the reference point confirming unit is configured to confirm the at least two reference points from above the reference point generating unit toward the reference point generating unit (figs. 4A-4B, 11D; detector assembly 401, radiation sources 402; ¶[0053], [0115]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are hereby allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method of claim 15, particularly including and in combination with, setting a measurement unit used to measure discharge dot of chemical solution discharged from an inkjet head based on a second reference point; and measuring the discharge dot of the chemical solution discharged from the inkjet head based on a first reference point using the measuring unit, wherein the first reference point and the second reference point have different sizes and are generated to have a same central axis at a same position, and both the first reference point and the second reference point are confirmed using one reference point confirming unit in one place.
The closest art of record, Imanishi (US 20200301332 A1), teaches an image-forming apparatus comprising a reference mark producing system and method, wherein a pair of reference marks are formed, one on each side of a medium, and the pair of marks are illuminated with light in order to measure the warping of a printing medium. Imanishi fails to teach or fairly suggest measuring a discharge dot of a chemical solution based on a first reference point.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 6 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.
Claims 7-14 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the apparatus of claim 6, particularly including and in combination with, a reference point confirming unit including a reference point generating unit and a reference point confirming unit, wherein the reference point generating unit is configured to generate a first reference point provided as a reference point when measuring discharge dot of chemical solution discharged from the inkjet head and a second reference point provided as a reference point when setting a measurement unit used for measuring the discharge dot, the reference point generating unit is configured to generate the first reference point and the second reference point to have a same central axis at a same position while having different sizes, and the reference point confirming unit is configured to confirm both the first reference point and the second reference point using only one in one place.
The closest art of record, Imanishi (US 20200301332 A1), teaches an image-forming apparatus comprising a reference mark producing system and method, wherein a pair of reference marks are formed, one on each side of a medium, and the pair of marks are illuminated with light in order to measure the warping of a printing medium. Imanishi fails to teach or fairly suggest measuring a discharge dot of a chemical solution based on a first reference point.
Claim 3, is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the assembly of claim 3, particularly including and in combination with, the reference point generating unit includes a beam projection for generating one reference point and a size variable unit for changing the one reference point generated by the beam projection to have at least two different sizes.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bogart (US 20150174934 A1) teaches a reference point generating unit and method to judge the mis-registration between printheads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights