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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 17 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Claim 10 has been amended and examined as such.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATARI et al. (US 2022/0072847 A1) in view of Yamada et al. (US 4,849,909 A).
As related to independent claim 1, WATARI et al. teaches an inkjet printer comprising: a main body having an ink tank storing ink; a print head configured to electrify ink particles generated by applying an excitation voltage to a piezoelectric element exciting the ink supplied from the ink tank to a nozzle to change a trajectory of the ink particles according to an amount of charge on the ink particles (WATARI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 2-3, 5, & 8; Page 2, Paragraphs 28-30; and Figure 1, shown below), thereby performing printing using the ink particles on a print target; and a controller configured to control the print head (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; and Figures 3 & 14, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
624
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
682
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Continuing with claim 1, WATARI et al. does not specifically teach measuring the charging phase waveform of the characteristics of the waveform relationship to the excitation voltage. However, Yamada et al. teaches an inkjet printer comprising a print head configured to electrify ink particles and a controller configured to control the print head (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51 and Figures 1 & 9, shown below) and specifically teaches the controller is configured to: measure a charging phase waveform representing a relationship between a charging phase and the amount of charge on ink droplets, measure an excitation voltage characteristic representing a relationship between the excitation voltage and a feature amount calculated from the charging phase waveform, and calculate an excitation voltage set value allowing printing based on the excitation voltage characteristic, and drive the piezoelectric element based on the calculated excitation voltage set value (Yamada et al. – Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66 and Figures 4 & 13, shown below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the controller of WATARI et al. to measure and calculate the waveforms and excitation voltages as taught by Yamada et al. in an effort to provide an ink-jet recording device in which ink droplets are used to record images with high precision and less recording distortion (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 45-51).
PNG
media_image4.png
452
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
290
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
356
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
678
464
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As related to independent claim 5, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach an inkjet printer comprising: a main body having an ink tank storing ink; a print head configured to electrify ink particles generated by applying an excitation voltage to a piezoelectric element exciting the ink supplied from the ink tank to a nozzle to change a trajectory of the ink particles according to an amount of charge on ink droplets (WATARI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 2-3, 5, & 8; Page 2, Paragraphs 28-30; and Figure 1, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51 and Figures 1 & 9, shown above), thereby performing printing using the ink particles on a print target; and a controller configured to control the print head, wherein the controller is configured to: measure a charging phase waveform representing a relationship between a charging phase and the amount of charge on ink droplets, and determine a quality state [i.e. size and/or viscosity] of the ink from the charging phase waveform (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; and Figures 3 & 14, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66 and Figures 4 & 13, shown above).
As related to independent claim 10, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach an inkjet printer comprising: a main body having an ink tank storing ink; a print head configured to electrify ink particles generated by applying an excitation voltage to a piezoelectric element exciting the ink supplied from the ink tank to a nozzle to change a trajectory of the ink particles according to an amount of charge on the ink particles, thereby performing printing using the ink particles on a print target; a controller configured to control the print head (WATARI et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 2-3, 5, & 8; Page 2, Paragraphs 28-30; and Figure 1, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51 and Figures 1 & 9, shown above); and a display unit configured to display predetermined information (WATARI et al. – Figure 3, Reference #44, shown above), wherein: the controller is configured to: measure a charging phase waveform representing a relationship between a charging phase and the amount of charge on the ink particles, measure an excitation voltage characteristic representing a relationship between the excitation voltage and a feature amount calculated from the charging phase waveform, calculate an excitation voltage set value allowing printing based on the excitation voltage characteristic, and drive the piezoelectric element using the calculated excitation voltage set value, control the print head based on the calculated excitation voltage set value, and determine a quality state of the ink from the charging phase waveform, and the display unit displays a determination result of the quality state of the ink. (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; and Figures 3 & 14, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66 and Figures 4 & 13, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller obtains a peak ratio of a maximum value to a minimum value of the electrification quantity of the charging phase waveform as the feature amount of the excitation voltage characteristic (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57).
As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller calculates the excitation voltage corresponding to a maximum point of the peak ratio included in the excitation voltage characteristic as the excitation voltage set value (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57).
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller calculates the excitation voltage set value periodically or at any timing (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57).
As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller is configured to: measure an excitation voltage characteristic representing a relationship between the excitation voltage and a feature amount calculated from the charging phase waveform, and determine the quality state of the ink based on the excitation voltage characteristic (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; and Figures 3 & 14, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57 and Figures 4 & 13, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 7, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller obtains a peak ratio of a maximum value to a minimum value of the electrification quantity of the charging phase waveform as the feature amount of the excitation voltage characteristic (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57).
As related to further dependent claim 8, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller determines the quality state of the ink using a maximum point of the peak ratio included in the excitation voltage characteristic (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; and Figures 3 & 14, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57 and Figures 4 & 13, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 9, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller determines that the quality state of the ink is favorable when the maximum point is greater than a threshold value, and determines that the quality state of the ink is poor when the maximum point is less than the threshold value (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; and Figures 3 & 14, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57 and Figures 4 & 13, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 11, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller obtains a peak ratio of a maximum value to a minimum value of the amount of charge of the charging phase waveform as the feature amount of the excitation voltage characteristic (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57).
As related to further dependent claim 12, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller calculates the excitation voltage corresponding to a maximum point of the peak ratio included in the excitation voltage characteristic as the excitation voltage set value (Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57).
As related to further dependent claim 13, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller determines the quality state of the ink using a maximum point of the peak ratio included in the excitation voltage characteristic (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; and Figures 3 & 14, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57 and Figures 4 & 13, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 14, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the controller determines the quality state of the ink by calculating the excitation voltage set value periodically or at any timing, and when the quality state of the ink is determined to be poor as a result of determination on the quality state of the ink, the display unit displays a dialogue box encouraging replacement with the ink, the quality state of which is favorable (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 5-8; Page 2, Paragraphs 26-30; Page 3, Paragraph 41; Page 5, Paragraph 64; and Figures 3 & 14, shown above and Yamada et al. – Column 1, Lines 5-51; Column 3, Line 8 – Column 4, Line 66; and Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 57; Figures 4 & 13, shown above and Figures 2A-2B, shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
374
566
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
364
562
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 15, the combination of WATARI et al. and Yamada et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a printing system [i.e. industrial inkjet recording devices] of an inkjet printer comprising: at least one inkjet printer (WATARI et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 2 and Figure 1, shown above); and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized when using inkjet recording device(s) for industrial purposes the use of at least one inkjet printer connected across the industrial facility to the main controller and display located at a remote location in the facility. This common layout of industrial printing facilities inherently teaches a server (or plurality of servers] connected to the inkjet printer via a communication line wherein the server displays a determination result of an ink quality state. Examples of industrial printing facilities using servers and communication lines are plentiful and well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (US 2011/0164082 A1) teaches an inkjet printing device with a controller which measures a charging phase and excitation voltage characteristic. Garcia Verdugo et al. (US 2019/0224966 A1) teaches a printing system and the variation of the printing quality based on the qualities of the ink and controlling for that. MAEDA (US 2025/0091339 A1) teaches a similar inkjet recording device and method submitted by a similar Applicant or Assignee.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights