DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-4: “consisting in” should be changed to --consisting of--.
Claim 1, line 6: “passage matrix” should be changed to --change-of-basis matrix-- or --transition matrix--.
“passage matrix” should be changed to --change-of-basis matrix-- or --transition matrix-- throughout the claims.
Claim 1, part k): the two occurrences of “its” seem to be referring to different elements. It appears “its characteristic point” is referring to the characteristic point of the impact; and “its intersection point” is referring to the intersection point between the mathematical surface representative of the fixed surface and a line passing through the first nozzle.
Claim 9: “each objective function” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 9: “step m2)” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1, part a) recites:
a) aiming with the camera at least one point on a surface fixed in the base frame;
It is not clear if the camera is being aimed, or if the camera is being used to aim another object. Possible amendments include: --a) aiming the camera at at least one point on a surface fixed in the base frame;-- or --a) aiming, with the camera, the printing head at at least one point on a surface fixed in the base frame;--
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5, step m2) recites:
m2) expressing, for each printing head position and each nozzle, a further deviation based on the coordinates of its characteristic point and the coordinates of its intersection point , the other deviation being different from that expressed in step k);
It is not clear what “its characteristic point” refers to. The term “characteristic point” has been used to refer to a part of an impact in claim 1, but step m2) does not reference an impact, and thus it is not clear what “its” is referring to. Is “the other deviation” referring to the “further deviation”?
In claim 10, it is not clear what “a near position” is near to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, Haucourt et al. (FR 3061076) teaches, at Figs. 1 and 2, a marking robot 7 carrying a print head 10 and camera 11. Haucourt teaches, at the last page of the translation of the specification provided on 12/5/2024,
A marking cycle takes place as follows:
The controller 19 automatically triggers a calibration of the print head.
The print head 10 - camera 11 assembly is brought in front of the console 9 and is positioned by applying the coordinates of a reference point to the actuators of this assembly. From this point, the assembly is operated so that the print head traces on the sheet 12 a cross 15 in solid line. The coordinates of the reference point are then applied to the camera 11 which, by construction, comes opposite a fixed theoretical location in the reference frame of the printing robot. The difference between the central point of the cross 15 and the fictitious cross 16 represents the correction which must be applied to the positioning of the print head 10.
After application of the correction, a new verification is carried out in another zone of the sheet 12, until the difference is less than a predetermined value.
Haucourt fails to specifically teach or suggest determining the transition matrix between a frame linked to the printing head and a frame linked to a wrist using a line passing through the nozzle as described in steps i, j, and m of claim 1.
Moringer et al. (DE 102016204123) teaches, at Fig. 2 and the abstract, a camera positioned adjacent to print head 5 may be use to precisely align one portion of a printed image with another portion of the printed image. Moringer fails to specifically teach or suggest determining the transition matrix between a frame linked to the printing head and a frame linked to a wrist using a line passing through the nozzle as described in steps i, j, and m of claim 1.
Moribe (US Publication No. 2025/0150546) teaches, at Fig. 7 and paragraph [0002], correcting printing in accordance with printing characteristics of plural nozzles such as a shift of the ink ejection amount and the landing position, so that density unevenness does not occur. This is performed by scanning a printed area and associating a pixel position of a printed element with a nozzle number (S707, Fig. 7), and then calculating a correction amount of each nozzle (S709, Fig. 7). Moribe fails to specifically teach or suggest determining the transition matrix between a frame linked to the printing head and a frame linked to a wrist using a line passing through the nozzle as described in steps i, j, and m of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights