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 12/9/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
This claim contains the limitations that “a distance between the first A marker and the first B marker is different from a distance between any other two markers than a combination of the first A marker and the first B marker” and “a distance between the second A marker and the second B marker is different from a distance between any other two markers than a combination of the second A marker and the second B marker.” These limitations overstate the claimed invention such that the claim scope extends beyond Applicant’s teachings.
Specifically, Examiner appreciates that distance between the first A marker (231) and the first B marker (238) is different from a distance between any other two markers from the left and right regions (241-242). However, Applicant’s own inspection sheet contains various other “markers,” such as those which form inspection patterns 222-223.
Because the claimed term “markers” a generic term that does not part of a particular pattern and does not perform a specific function, the above claim limitations overstate Applicant’s invention such that the scope extends beyond the originally filed teachings.
Regarding claims 2-9:
These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore also fail to meet the requirements of this statute.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6 of the claim, please change “performing analysis the inspection sheet” to “performing analysis on the inspection sheet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Kanai (US 2018/0236800 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Kanai discloses a method of manufacturing a printer including making an unadjusted printer (printing apparatus 20) of a serial inkjet type print an inspection sheet (S110: Fig. 3) including an inspection pattern (at least region 42 of test pattern 40), making a scan unit (area sensor 36) read the inspection sheet (S120: Fig. 3), and adjusting the unadjusted printer based on the inspection pattern which is detected by performing analysis on the inspection sheet (S290: Fig. 3), the method comprising:
making the unadjusted printer print, on the inspection sheet, a first A marker (e.g. 0 ruled line of measurement line set 42Mob) and a first B marker (e.g. +5 ruled line of measurement line set 42Mob) with a first nozzle group (e.g. of magenta print head 30M: paragraph 67) and a second A marker (e.g. 0 ruled line of reference line set 42Mbm) and a second B marker (e.g. +5 ruled line of reference line set 42Mbm) with a second nozzle group (e.g. of cyan print head 30C: paragraph 66),
wherein a distance between the first A marker and the first B marker is different from a distance between any other two markers than a combination of the first A marker and the first B marker (paragraphs 59, 63-65 & Fig. 9),
wherein a distance between the second A marker and the second B marker is different from a distance between any other two markers than a combination of the second A marker and the second B marker (paragraphs 59-62 & Fig. 9),
wherein which markers are detected is determined in the analysis based on a distance between two markers detected from the inspection sheet (S230: paragraph 70 & Figs. 6, 9), and
wherein a position of the inspection pattern in the inspection sheet is identified based on positions of the two markers determined (S240: paragraph 71 & Figs. 6, 9).
Regarding claim 2:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that nozzles configured to eject same type of ink (e.g. “color”) are divided into three or more nozzle groups () including the first nozzle group and the second nozzle group (Fig. 4),
the method further comprising making each of the nozzle groups print two markers (paragraph 54 & Figs. 7, 9), and
in each of the nozzle groups, a distance between the two markers printed by the nozzle groups is different from a distance between any other two markers than a combination of the two markers printed by the nozzle group (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that each of the nozzle groups includes nozzles different from nozzles which another of the nozzle groups includes (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the unadjusted printer is made to print the first A marker and the first B marker at an end side of the inspection pattern on the inspection sheet (Figs. 4, 7).
Regarding claim 5:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 4, and also that the unadjusted printer is made to print the second A marker and the second B marker at an end side of the inspection pattern on the inspection sheet (Figs. 4, 7).
Regarding claim 6:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the unadjusted printer is made to print the first A marker and the first B marker in the same pass (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 7:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 6, and also that the unadjusted printer is made to print the second A marker and the second B marker in the same pass (paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 8:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the unadjusted printer is made to print the first A marker and the second A marker at equal positions in a sub-scanning direction (Figs. 7, 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanai (US 2018/0236800 A1) in view of Takeuchi (JP 2006110804 A).
Regarding claim 9:
Kanai discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the inspection pattern includes a nozzle inspection pattern representing a condition of nozzle clogging.
However, Takeuchi disclose a method of manufacturing a printer that enables a user to perform printhead replacement or cleaning (paragraph 69) by printing an inspection pattern that includes a nozzle inspection pattern (Fig. 7) representing a condition of nozzle clogging (paragraphs 39, 65-66), and the adjustment of the printer includes cleaning of the nozzle with an intensity corresponding to the condition of the nozzle clogging (paragraph 69).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kanai’s method to further print a nozzle inspection pattern.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights