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 1/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “21” and “22” has been used to designate “a plurality of nozzles,” “utilized nozzles,” “individual nozzles,” “a nozzle,” “single nozzle,” “respective nozzle,” “a complementary set of failed nozzles,” “individual failed nozzles,” “adjacent nozzles,” and “corresponding nozzles”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. This relates to the rejection above “21” and “22” can’t be all the listed elements. Therefore the “utilized nozzles,” “individual nozzles,” “a nozzle,” “single nozzle,” “respective nozzle,” “a complementary set of failed nozzles,” “individual failed nozzles,” “adjacent nozzles,” and “corresponding nozzles must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the pages have line numbers (in increments of 5). There should be no other numbers on the page other than claim numbers, page number at the top or bottom, or numbers pertinent within the body of the claim. Additionally, claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims contain “ – “. Finally, the claims have numerous grammar errors, such as subject verb agreement, extraneous punctuation. 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 1-20 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.
With regard to claims 1- 3, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 18, how does the at least one processor (control unit) identify a set of nozzles that failed? A control unit can only control. How is the control unit identifying?
With regard to claims 3 and 13, it is unclear what is meant by “control the inkjet printing device to , for the identification of the set of failed nozzles.”
With regard to claims 13 and 19, it is unclear how the second test print image can ever be printed before printing the first test print image as claimed. The second of anything always comes after the first. Please clarify.
With regard to claim 20, there is a lack of antecedent basis with regard to the claimed second test print image.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 and 11 recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the set of failed nozzles based on the first test print image.” This limitation has already been incorporated in their respective independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4 and 6-20 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0303950 to Takesue et al. “Takesue.”
With regard to Claim 1 and corresponding method claim 10, Takesue teaches (figs. 5A and 7) a processing unit for an inkjet printing device that comprises
at least one print bar having a plurality of nozzles [0003 and 0008];
wherein the plurality of nozzles is configured to print dots in a corresponding plurality of columns of a print image onto a recording medium [0003 and 0008],
the processing unit comprising at least one processor configured to:
control the inkjet printing device to print a first test print image onto the recording medium by the plurality of nozzles for a uniformity test ([0054 and 0055] Figs. 4, 5A and 5B);
identify, from the plurality of nozzles, a set of nozzles that failed in the printing of the first test print image [0056 and 0057];
wherein the plurality of nozzles of the print bar without the identified set of failed nozzles forms a complementary set of nozzles ([0070 and 0074] Fig. 10);
determine, depending on the first test print image, calibration data that establish a respective ink quantity to be ejected by a respective nozzle of the nozzles of the complementary set of nozzles ([0070 and 0074] Fig. 10; and
for a printing operation of the printing device following the uniformity test: deactivate the identified set of failed nozzles ([0074] Figs. 11A and 11B); and
operate the complementary set of nozzles based on the calibration data [0074].
With regard to Claim 2 and corresponding claim 11, Takesue teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify the set of failed nozzles based on the first test print image ([0056-0057 and 0060-0061] and Fig. 7).
With regard to Claim 3 and corresponding method claim 13, Takesue teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control the inkjet printing device to / for the identification of the set of failed nozzles, print a second test print image onto the recording medium; and identify the set of failed nozzles based on the second test print image ([0060-0061] and Fig. 7).
With regard to Claim 4 and corresponding method claim 16, Takesue teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the identified set of failed nozzles to remain deactivated during the printing operation until the implementation of a subsequent uniformity test, so that the identified set of failed nozzles is not driven for the printing of dots during the printing operation ([0074] and Figs. 11A and 11B).
With regard to Claim 6 and corresponding method claim 17, Takesue teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the calibration data such that the first test print image is printed by the complementary set of nozzles, based on the calibration data, with a more consistent uniform inking than the first test print image that was actually printed on the recording medium for the uniformity test [0059-0065].
With regard to Claim 7, Takesue teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a degraded sub-region of the first test print image that is less strongly inked than another sub-region of the first test print image; identify a group of nozzles by which the degraded sub-region of the first test print image was printed; and determine calibration data for the identified group of nozzles, via which calibration data it is effected that an increased ink quantity is ejected by the group of nozzles [0065-0066].
With regard to Claim 8, Takesue teaches wherein a target specification for the first test print image is a uniformly inked area on the recording medium; and the at least one processor is further configured to: identify one or more sub-regions, of the first test print image that was printed on the recording medium, that are not uniformly inked; and determine calibration data via which the ink quantity respectively ejected per dot by the individual nozzles of the complementary set of nozzles is varied such that the one or more identified sub-regions are inked uniformly and/or the ink quantity within a nozzle track of a nozzle can be adapted via the number of ejected ink droplets such that the one or more identified sub-regions are inked uniformly [0059-0065].
With regard to Claim 9, Takesue teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to analyze a scanned version of the first test print image printed onto the recording medium, in order to determine the calibration data ([0052, 0061 and 0066] and claim 14).
With regard to Claim 12 and corresponding claim 18, Takesue teaches wherein the set of failed nozzles is identified based on one or more sub-regions of the first test print image that are not inked or inked only less strongly than an average (fig. 5B).
With regard to Claims 14 and corresponding claim 19, Takesue teaches wherein the second test print image is printed directly before or directly after the printing of the first test print image for the uniformity test and the second test print image has a plurality of lines spaced apart from one another for the corresponding plurality of nozzles.
With regard to Claim 15, Takesue teaches wherein the set of failed nozzles is identified based on one or more missing lines of the second test print image (fig. 5B).
With regard to Claim 20, Takesue teaches wherein the set of failed nozzles is identified based on one or more missing lines of the second test print image (fig. 5B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and corresponding method claim 17 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesue as modified by US 2024/0066889 to Ukishima.
With regard to Claim 5, Takesue teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the identified set of failed nozzles to be activated for a subsequent uniformity test, so that the identified set of failed nozzles is driven for the printing of dots of the first test print image for the subsequent uniformity test.
However, Ukishima teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the identified set of failed nozzles to be activated for a subsequent uniformity test, so that the identified set of failed nozzles is driven for the printing of dots of the first test print image for the subsequent uniformity test ([0018, 0055 and 0108] and claim 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takesue with the teachings of Ukishima to provide a density unevenness correction data creation method, a density unevenness correction data creation apparatus, a printing system, a program, a test chart, and a test chart data creation apparatus in which density unevenness correction with high accuracy [0030].
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers (or paragraphs or figures) in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. The specified citations are representative of the teachings in 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 that, in preparing responses, applicant 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2004/0223025 discloses a system for compensating for non-functional ink cartridge ink jet nozzles is provided. The system includes an ink jet compensation system that receives ink jet nozzle failure data, such as each nozzle that is clogged or damaged, and that generates nozzle correction data, such as a nozzle to fire instead of each failed nozzle for a given print pattern or a nozzle firing sequence that compensates for the failed nozzle, such as by printing at that location during a subsequent or previous printer head pass. An ink control system receives the nozzle correction data and image data and generates printer control data, such as by receiving image data in a standard format for printing and modifying the printer control data that would be generated if all ink jet heads were functioning properly to include the nozzle correction data.
US 10,322,579 discloses a printing system and a corresponding method, different nozzles of a print head can be activated to eject a nominal ink quantity with different ejection pulses to at least partially compensate for non-uniformities between the different nozzles due to crosstalk. The compensation can reduce system-dependent streaking of the print image.
US 11,338,600 discloses a recording device includes a recording head in which a plurality of nozzle rows are arranged in a predetermined direction that include a first nozzle row including a plurality of nozzles for ejecting ink having a predetermined color, and a second nozzle row including a plurality of nozzles for ejecting ink having an identical color to the predetermined color, and a control unit configured to control ejection of ink by the nozzle, wherein the control unit, when a test pattern for an inspection of a missing dot due to an ejecting defect of the nozzle is recorded on a recording medium, records a dot pattern, that is an individual element that forms the test pattern, so that ink ejected from a nozzle of the first nozzle row, and ink ejected from a nozzle of the second nozzle row overlap.
CN 110949006 B discloses a method for compensating the position-related density fluctuations of a printing nozzle in an inkjet printer (7) by a computer (6), wherein the method comprises the following steps: (1), the computer (6) is used for controlling the density fluctuation of the printing nozzle in the inkjet printer (7), The computer (6) generates compensation curve (8, 9, 11) for all printing heads (5) related to the density fluctuation of all printing heads (5), calculating the average curve (10) by the compensation curve, and the average curve (10) is used for compensating the position-related density fluctuation in the ink jet printer (7), wherein when replacing one or more print heads (5) of the ink jet printer (7), the computer (6) only calculates a new compensation curve (9a) for a printed substrate, The computer (6) derives a new average curve (10a) from the new compensation curve, and the computer (6) calculates and uses the new average curve (10a) in the case of considering the old compensation curves (8, 11) for the rest of the printed substrates.
Communication with the PTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON A POLK whose telephone number is (571)270-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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.
SHARON A. POLK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/Sharon Polk/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights