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 § 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 2 and 3 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 2 recites the limitation "the determined threshold" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the comparison" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the determination unit determines that the target nozzle is under ejection failure based on a result of the comparison” is unclear since it is unknow what is exactly being compared to each other. As such since the meets and bounds of the claim are unknown is the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oikawa et al. (US 20190299590 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oikawa et al. teaches a print head in which a plurality of nozzles capable of ejecting ink are arranged (Fig. 12 element 3 and paragraphs [0034] and [0090]); a first detection unit configured to detect a predetermined parameter for each of the nozzles (Fig. 3a element 306 and paragraph [0065]); a determination unit configured to compare a signal based on a result of the detection by the first detection unit with a threshold to determine an ink ejection status of a target nozzle (Fig. 4 element 417 and paragraph [0065]); and a threshold generation unit configured to generate the threshold (Fig. 4 element 419, Fig. 8 element S201 and paragraphs [0091] and [0098]), wherein the printing apparatus has operation modes including: a first mode under which the threshold is variable (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0100]); and a second mode under which the threshold is fixed (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0091]) and under the first mode, the determination unit makes the determination for each of the nozzles for a predetermined number of times (paragraph [0101]), the threshold generation unit changes the threshold each time the determination, made for the predetermined number of times, is made (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0105]), and the threshold is determined for the second mode based on a result of the determination made for the predetermined number of times (Fig. 8 element 211 and paragraph [106] and [0109]).
Regarding claim 2, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Oikawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and further comprising an ejection failure detection unit configured to detect an ejection failure nozzle from the plurality of nozzles (Fig. 7 element S16, Fig. 4 element 419 paragraphs [0091] and [0093]), wherein under the second mode, the determination unit makes the determination on each of the nozzle for the predetermined number of times (paragraphs [0092] and [0093]), the threshold generation unit generates the determined threshold each time the determination (Fig. 7 element S12 and paragraph [0091]), made for the predetermined number of times, is made, and the ejection failure detection unit detects the ejection failure nozzle from the plurality of nozzles based on a result of the determination made for the predetermined number of times (Fig. 7 element S16, Fig. 4 element 419 paragraphs [0091] and [0093]).
Regarding claim 3, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Oikawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 2 as stated above and the determination unit determines that the target nozzle is under ejection failure based on a result of the comparison ( Fig. 7 element S14 and paragraph [0093]), and the ejection failure detection unit includes a measurement unit configured to measure an ejection failure count obtained through the determination by the determination unit, and detects the ejection failure nozzle based on a result of the measurement (Fig. 4 element 421 and paragraphs [0094], [0118] and [0119]).
Regarding claim 4, Oikawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and the print head includes a heater element for driving each of the nozzles (paragraph [039]), and the first detection unit is a temperature detection unit configured to detect a temperature of the ink in each of the nozzles (Fig. 3A-C element 306 and paragraphs [0061] and [0074]). The examiner notes that the ability of the temperature sensor to measure the temperature of the ink is intended use and since the temperature detecting unit detects temperature in nozzle of the recording head it is taken as capable of detecting the temperature of the ink.
Regarding claim 5, Oikawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 4 as stated above and wherein the signal based on a result of the detection by the temperature detection unit is obtained through differentiation processing executed on a signal corresponding to the temperature of the ink detected by the temperature detection unit (Fig. 5. And paragraphs [0075]- [0078]).
Regarding claim 6, Oikawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and wherein under the first mode, the threshold generation unit changes the threshold while performing addition or subtraction to or from a reference value each time the determination, made the for the predetermined number of times, is made (Fig. 8 elements S203 and S210 and paragraphs [0100] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 9, Oikawa et al. teaches detecting a predetermined parameter for each of the nozzles (paragraph [0065]); comparing a signal based on the detected parameter with a threshold to determine an ink ejection status of a target nozzle (Fig. 7 element S14 and paragraph [0093]); and generating the threshold (Fig. 7 element S12 and paragraph [0091]), wherein the printing apparatus has operation modes including: a first mode under which the threshold is variable (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0100]); and a second mode under which the threshold is fixed (Fig. 7 and paragraph [0091]) and under the first mode, the determination unit makes the determination for each of the nozzles for a predetermined number of times (paragraph [0101]), the threshold generation unit changes the threshold each time the determination, made for the predetermined number of times, is made (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0105]), and the threshold is determined for the second mode based on a result of the determination made for the predetermined number of times (Fig. 8 element 211 and paragraph [106] and [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, Oikawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 9 as stated above and A computer-readable storage medium storing a program (Fig. 2 element 420 and paragraph [0047]), the program configured to cause a computer to perform each step of the method according to claim 9 (Fig. 4 element 417 and paragraph [0091]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are 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:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all of the apparatus as recited alone or in combination with particularly including wherein under the first mode, when an ejection failure count obtained through the determination made for the predetermined number of times for one of the nozzles is outside an effective range, for the one nozzle, the threshold generation unit updates the reference value to change the threshold, and the determination unit further makes the determination for the predetermined number of times.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murase et al. (US 20200047491 A1), Oikawa et al. (US 20200298555 A1) and Tabayashi et al. (US 20070291066 A1) are cited for having apparatuses similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights