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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character “Dz” in fig. 2 is not in the specification. It is inferred that it may be a stacking or height direction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
It is further suggested for Fig. 13 to include reference characters “110”, “111”, “119”, and “120” with the heads as it is referenced in the specification, para. 0084.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 8 and 9 recite “the line head has a plurality of pressure chambers each provided for one of the plurality of nozzles, and a plurality of actuators each configured to apply ejecting pressure to one of the plurality of pressure chambers; and”.
This appears to be a duplicate of the recitation of claim 2, “the line head includes a plurality of pressure chambers each of which is provided for one of the plurality of nozzles and a plurality of actuators each of which is configured to apply ejection pressure to one of the plurality of pressure chambers; and”. Both claims 8 and 9 are dependent on claim 2.
The recitation should be removed from claims 8 and 9 as the recited limitation is not further limiting of claim 2, or alternatively should be corrected for antecedent basis.
For examination purposes, claims 8 and 9 will be examined such that the recited limitation is removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
At least claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 12 include listings of limitations provided with “or”. These claims are interpreted as only needing one or at least one of the limitations that are listed in combination with the word “or”.
For example, claim 1 has a limitation wherein the ejection velocity of liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle is made higher than that of a downstream nozzle or the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle is delayed. Therefore, a rejection, under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, may be made such that only one of the ejection velocity or the ejection timing is changed as cited. In other words, in the case where only one of the two aspects (e.g., higher ejection velocity) is taught by an individual reference, an additional rejection of the other aspect (e.g., delayed ejection timing) may or may not be made in view of another reference.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation " the controller is configured not to execute a process of increasing the ejection velocity and a process of delaying the ejection timing in a case where a base is formed on the print medium" in the last lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Particularly, the claim should point out the increasing of ejection velocity with respect to, say, the upstream nozzle and delaying the ejection timing with respect to, say, the upstream nozzle.
As understood by the examiner, the claim may be recited such that each of the processes are related to the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle. However, based on this understanding, the claim may be found to be in improper dependent form. Specifically, the claim would eliminate the primary aspect of what the controller does according to claim 1 (making the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle higher or making the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle delayed) by the recitation in claim 11 of the controller not executing the processes. And therefore the claim would be further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph (see below).
As such, claim 11 is rejected and will not be further examined at this time.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the controller as making the ejection velocity of liquid droplet by the downstream nozzle higher than that of an upstream nozzle or making the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the downstream nozzle delayed, in the fifth to ninth lines of the claim. This changes and counters the recitation in claim 1 of which claim 10 depends on wherein the controller makes the ejection velocity of liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle higher than that of a downstream nozzle or makes the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle delayed.
Therefore, for examination purposes, claim 10 will be examined such that it recites:
“The liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a platen configured to support the print medium, wherein:
the line head has a nozzle surface; and
exists where a print mode is a high gap-print mode among a low gap-print mode and the high gap-print mode,
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 8,292,384 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claimed invention is obvious over US 8292384 B2 as follows (with the claim number in parentheses and obviousness in italics):
Present Application 19/039,000
U.S. Patent No. 8,292,384 B2
(1) A liquid droplet ejecting apparatus comprising:
(1) A liquid droplet ejection device comprising:
(1) a conveyor configured to convey a print medium in a conveying direction;
(1) a moving section that moves the recording section and the recording medium relative to one another in a direction intersecting an array direction in which the plurality of liquid droplet ejectors are arrayed; and
Col. 3, ll. 28-30; Fig. 1: conveyor conveys the sheet below the recording heads
(1) a line head having a plurality of nozzles which is disposed side by side in the conveying direction and a crossing direction crossing the conveying direction and each of which is configured to eject a liquid droplet to the print medium; and
(1) a recording section at which a plurality of liquid droplet ejectors are arrayed, each liquid droplet ejector having a driving element, and ejecting a liquid droplet onto a recording medium due to a driving signal for ejecting a liquid droplet being supplied to the driving element;
Col. 3, ll. 55-65; Fig. 2: recording heads are fixed and have lengths corresponding to the widths of the medium; i.e., line heads
(1) a controller configured to increase an ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by an upstream nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located upstream in the conveying direction of a downstream nozzle being a part of the plurality of nozzles, to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the downstream nozzle, or to delay an ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle.
(1) a driving signal supplying section that, when a plurality of types of liquid droplets having different droplet volumes are ejected onto the recording medium while the recording section and the recording medium are moved relatively, generates the driving signals such that, the smaller a droplet volume of a liquid droplet, the faster the ejection speed of the liquid droplet
Col. 8, ll. 23-29; Fig. 11A: small drop nozzle row is the upstream nozzle row, and large drop nozzle row is the downstream nozzle row, therefore upstream nozzle row is faster
(7) The liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the controller is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by each of nozzles, of the plurality of nozzles, located on both sides in the crossing direction to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a remaining nozzle of the plurality of nozzles.
(1) the driving signal supplying section generates and supplies the driving signals such that an ejection speed of liquid droplets that are ejected from end portion liquid droplet ejectors, which are positioned at both ends in the array direction and within predetermined ranges from the respective both ends of the liquid droplet ejectors that are used for recording the image, is faster than an ejection speed of liquid droplets that are ejected from liquid droplet ejectors other than the end portion liquid droplet ejectors.
Col. 4, ll. 57-67: controller sends selection signals to generate drive signals for selected driving elements
(14) A liquid droplet ejecting apparatus comprising:
(1) A liquid droplet ejection device comprising:
(14) a conveyor configured to convey a print medium in a conveying direction;
(1) a moving section that moves the recording section and the recording medium relative to one another in a direction intersecting an array direction in which the plurality of liquid droplet ejectors are arrayed; and
Col. 3, ll. 28-30; Fig. 1: conveyor conveys the sheet below the recording heads
(14) a line head having a plurality of nozzles which is disposed side by side in the conveying direction and a crossing direction crossing the conveying direction and each of which is configured to eject a liquid droplet to the print medium; and
(1) a recording section at which a plurality of liquid droplet ejectors are arrayed, each liquid droplet ejector having a driving element, and ejecting a liquid droplet onto a recording medium due to a driving signal for ejecting a liquid droplet being supplied to the driving element;
Col. 3, ll. 55-65; Fig. 2: recording heads are fixed and have lengths corresponding to the widths of the medium; i.e., line heads
Col. 8, ll. 23-29; Fig. 11A: two nozzle rows for a recording head
(14) a controller configured to increase an ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located at least one of both ends in the crossing direction to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a remaining nozzle of the plurality of nozzles.
(1) the driving signal supplying section generates and supplies the driving signals such that an ejection speed of liquid droplets that are ejected from end portion liquid droplet ejectors, which are positioned at both ends in the array direction and within predetermined ranges from the respective both ends of the liquid droplet ejectors that are used for recording the image, is faster than an ejection speed of liquid droplets that are ejected from liquid droplet ejectors other than the end portion liquid droplet ejectors.
Col. 4, ll. 57-67: controller sends selection signals to generate drive signals for selected driving elements
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.
(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, 7, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Fujii (US 8292384 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fuji discloses a liquid droplet ejecting apparatus (liquid droplet ejection device 10; Fig. 1) comprising:
a conveyor (conveyer 24; Fig. 1) configured to convey a print medium in a conveying direction (following arrows 20 in Fig. 1; sheet moving direction);
a line head (recording heads 12Y through 12K; Fig. 1, 2) having a plurality of nozzles (nozzles 2; Fig. 5A, 5B, 11A) which is disposed side by side in the conveying direction and a crossing direction crossing the conveying direction (nozzle rows; Fig. 11A; as understood by the examiner, Fig. 11A is directed the first exemplary embodiment of liquid droplet ejection device 10 and therefore an arrangement for each of recording heads 12Y through 12K; col. 8, ll. 18-21) and each of which is configured to eject a liquid droplet to the print medium; and
a controller (controller 30 working with head drivers 26; Fig. 4) configured to increase an ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by an upstream nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located upstream in the conveying direction of a downstream nozzle being a part of the plurality of nozzles, to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the downstream nozzle, (small drop nozzle row 74 is upstream and large drop nozzle row 72 is downstream with respect to the sheet moving direction; Fig. 11A; “driving signals can be generated and supplied such that the ejection speeds (initial speeds) are made to differ, and, the smaller the droplet volume of an ink drop, the faster the initial speed”; col. 8, ll. 8-11)
or to delay an ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle (not required due to “or”).
As noted above, independent claim 1 recites that the controller changes the ejection velocity or the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by an upstream nozzle. Under the assumption that controller changes the ejection velocity, Fujii anticipates claim 1. Under the assumption controller controls the ejection timing, Fujii fails to anticipate this feature.
Regarding claim 7, Fuji further discloses wherein the controller is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by each of nozzles, of the plurality of nozzles, located on both sides in the crossing direction to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a remaining nozzle of the plurality of nozzles (end portion nozzles are driven to be faster than remaining nozzles; col. 14, ll. 4-9).
Regarding claim 12, Fuji further discloses in a case where a base is formed on the print medium (as understood by the examiner, image data is used to determine which nozzles are used for forming an image; col. 4, ll. 41 – col. 5, ll. 7; therefore, a case would exist wherein an upstream head (12Y) is used to make a “base” that is a first image in the first color, and may be done by only upstream nozzles, which are faster than downstream nozzles), the controller is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located on an upstream side in the conveying direction, to be higher than the velocity of the liquid droplet by a nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located on a downstream side in the conveying direction (as understood by the examiner, image data is used to determine which nozzles are used for forming an image; col. 4, ll. 41 – col. 5, ll. 7; therefore, a case would exist wherein an downstream head (12M, 12C, or 12K) is used eject over the “base”, and may be done by only downstream nozzles, which are slower than upstream nozzles),
or to delay the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the nozzle located on the upstream side in the conveying direction (not required due to “or”),
with respect to a part, of the print medium, located on the downstream side in the conveying direction (as understood by the examiner, a change made with respect to a whole medium is still a change made with respect to a part of the whole).
Regarding claim 13, Fuji further discloses wherein the line head includes a plurality of pressure chambers (pressure generating chamber 4; Fig. 3) each provided for one of the plurality of nozzles and a plurality of actuators (driving element 7; Fig. 3) each configured to apply ejection pressure to one of the plurality of pressure chambers (col. 4, ll. 1-18); and
the controller is configured to control an actuator, of the plurality of actuators,
corresponding to the upstream nozzle based on a driving waveform based on which the ejection velocity is faster than the ejection velocity based on a driving waveform for an actuator, of the plurality of actuators, corresponding to the downstream nozzle (different waveforms; col. 7, ll. 28-33; Fig. 10A, 10B ; “By making the slope of the push waveform of time period T3 large, the initial speed of the ink drop that is ejected becomes faster”; col. 7, ll. 62-64).
Regarding claim 14, Fuji discloses a liquid droplet ejecting apparatus (liquid droplet ejection device 10; Fig. 1) comprising:
a conveyor (conveyer 24; Fig. 1) configured to convey a print medium in a conveying direction (following arrows 20 in Fig. 1; sheet moving direction);
a line head (recording heads 12Y through 12K; Fig. 1, 2) having a plurality of nozzles (nozzles 2; Fig. 5A, 5B, 11A) which is disposed side by side in the conveying direction and a crossing direction crossing the conveying direction (nozzle rows; Fig. 11A; as understood by the examiner, Fig. 11A is directed the first exemplary embodiment of liquid droplet ejection device 10 and therefore an arrangement for each of recording heads 12Y through 12K; col. 8, ll. 18-21) and each of which is configured to eject a liquid droplet to the print medium; and
a controller (controller 30 working with head drivers 26; Fig. 4) configured to increase an ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located at least one of both ends in the crossing direction to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a remaining nozzle of the plurality of nozzles (end portion nozzles are driven to be faster than remaining nozzles; col. 14, ll. 4-9).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda et al. (US 20190054739 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yasuda.
Regarding claim 1, as noted in the above rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, Fujii does not teach the controller delaying an ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle.
Yasuda teaches wherein an ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle (Vd2; Fig. 9) is higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the downstream nozzle (Vd1; Fig. 9; Vd1<Vd2; at para. 0079), and a controller (control unit 27; Fig. 1) may control (i.e., delayed or advanced) the ejection timing based on a plurality of parameters (Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fuji to further be able to control the ejection timing of liquid droplet by an upstream nozzle, such as a delay, for the purpose of correcting the landing position to compensate for changes in conveyance speed and/or ejection velocity, as taught by Yasuda (at para. 0089, 0101).
Regarding claim 5, Fujii [as modified by Yasuda] teaches the liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the line head has a plurality of head bars (each of 12K, 12M, 12C, 12Y; Fig. 1, 2) disposed side by side in the conveying direction, however Fujii does not explicitly teach wherein the line head has a plurality of ejecting heads in each of which the plurality of nozzles is disposed being disposed side by side at least along the crossing direction in each of the plurality of head bars;
and the controller is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the ejecting head in an upstream head bar, of the plurality of head bars, located upstream in the conveying direction of a downstream head bar being one of the plurality of head bars, to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the ejecting head in the downstream head bar, or to delay the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the ejecting head in the upstream head bar.
Yasuda teaches wherein a line head has a plurality of head bars (line heads 30A-30H; Fig. 3), a plurality of ejecting heads (ink-jet head 22; Fig. 2) in each of which the plurality of nozzles is disposed being disposed side by side at least along the crossing direction (nozzles 22A; Fig. 2) in each of the plurality of head bars;
and the controller (control unit 27; Fig. 1) is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the ejecting head in an upstream head bar, of the plurality of head bars, located upstream in the conveying direction of a downstream head bar being one of the plurality of head bars, to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the ejecting head in the downstream head bar (not required due to “or”), or to delay the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the ejecting head in the upstream head bar (upstream bars are front-row heads and downstream heads are back-row heads; at para. 0060; Fig. 3; ejection timing of a front-row or back-row head may be adjusted to delay or advanced; at para. 0094-0095; Fig. 12, 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fuji to have a line head configuration with a plurality of line bars, each with a plurality of ejecting heads, wherein timing of a whole bar may be adjusted, such as an upstream bar being delayed, for the purpose of for the purpose of correcting the landing position to compensate for changes in conveyance speed and/or ejection velocity, as taught by Yasuda (at para. 0089, 0101).
Regarding claim 6, Fuji as modified by Yasuda teaches the liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 5, and Fuji further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the upstream head bar and the downstream head bar from head bars, of the plurality of head bars, to be used, in a case where a head bar which is not to be used is present among the plurality of head bars (based on image data, just the downstream (large drop row) rows may be used; further, as understood, image data may dictate which colors are used and therefore which upstream/downstream bars/heads are used; col. 4, ll. 41 – col. 5, ll. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Fujii [as modified by Yasuda] teaches the liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a platen configured to support the print medium (endless belt of conveyor 24; col. 3, ll. 28; platen and endless belt are understood as equivalents and/or having structural similarities based on function of “configured to support…”), wherein: the line head has a nozzle surface (nozzle plate 3; Fig. 3).
However Fujii does not teach wherein a case exists where a print mode is a high gap-print mode among a low gap-print mode and the high gap-print mode, the low gap-print mode being a mode in which a distance between the nozzle surface and the platen is a low gap and the high gap printing mode being a mode in which the distance is a high gap greater than the low gap.
Yasuda teaches wherein the head gap is able to be adjusted (by head gap adjuster 52; Fig. 7), and a case exists where a print mode is a high gap-print mode among a low gap-print mode and the high gap-print mode, the low gap-print mode being a mode in which a distance between the nozzle surface and the platen is a low gap and the high gap printing mode being a mode in which the distance is a high gap greater than the low gap (head gap may be larger and/or smaller, depending on the thickness of the medium; col. 11, ll. 38-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fuji to account for head gap for the purpose of adjusting ejection timing to compensate for the head gap, such as earlier timing for a larger head gap, as taught by Yasuda (col1 11, ll. 46-49).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii [as modified by Yasuda] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maesaka et al. (US 9004634 B2), hereinafter referred to as Maesaka.
Regarding claim 2, Fujii [as modified by Yasuda] teaches the liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the line head includes a plurality of pressure chambers (pressure generating chamber 4; Fig. 3) each of which is provided for one of the plurality of nozzles and a plurality of actuators (driving element 7; Fig. 3) each of which is configured to apply ejection pressure to one of the plurality of pressure chambers (col. 4, ll. 1-18); and wherein the controller is changes ejection velocity based on driving waveform to the actuators (different waveforms; col. 7, ll. 28-33; Fig. 10A, 10B ; “By making the slope of the push waveform of time period T3 large, the initial speed of the ink drop that is ejected becomes faster”; col. 7, ll. 62-64).
However Fujii does not teach wherein the controller is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the upstream nozzle by increasing a driving voltage to an actuator, of the plurality of actuators, corresponding to the upstream nozzle to be higher than a driving voltage to an actuator, of the plurality of actuators, corresponding to the downstream nozzle.
Maesaka teaches wherein a controller is configured to increase an ejection velocity of a liquid droplet based on a different driving waveform and/or based on a higher drive voltage magnitude (col. 11, ll. 12-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fuji to alternatively increase driving voltage and not just a driving waveform for the purpose of increasing the propulsive force applied to liquid droplets to decrease print quality degradation as taught by Maesaka (col. 11, ll. 9-11).
Regarding claim 3, Fujii [as modified by Yasuda] teaches the liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 1, however Fujii does not teach wherein the line head has a plurality of ejecting heads disposed in a staggered manner along the crossing direction, the plurality of nozzles being disposed in each of the plurality of ejecting heads; and
the controller is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by an upstream ejecting head, of the plurality of ejecting heads, located upstream in the conveying direction of a downstream ejecting head being one of the plurality of ejecting heads, to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the downstream ejecting head, or to delay the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream ejecting head.
Maesaka teaches multiple configurations for a line bar (inkjet head 11; Fig. 1) of a line head: one wherein there are multiple ejecting heads (head blocks 12 with upstream head 13A and downstream head 13B; Fig. 1, 2A), each with one per ejecting head (Fig. 2A); and another wherein each of the nozzle rows are separated in the conveying direction (Fig. 13B) in what is understood as a plurality of ejecting heads (each row of nozzles 14 is surrounded by a border which is understood as used to constitute an ejecting head, therefore at least two heads are demonstrated; Fig. 13B) disposed in a staggered manner (each nozzle row is staggered; Fig. 13B) along the crossing direction (primary sweeping direction; Fig. 1, 13B) for a single line bar, the plurality of nozzles being disposed in each of the plurality of ejecting heads (each row of nozzles 14 is surrounded by a border as a single head; Fig. 13B).
By modifying Fujii with Maesaka’s configuration of separating rows into different ejecting heads, the line head of Fuji would have a configuration wherein each row of nozzles is separated into ejecting heads (i.e., Fuji’s upstream small drop nozzle row 74 would be a separate head from the downstream large drop nozzle row 72, which are then staggered).
Fujii, with the modified line head configuration, would now teach the controller as configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by an upstream ejecting head, of the plurality of ejecting heads, located upstream in the conveying direction of a downstream ejecting head being one of the plurality of ejecting heads, to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by the downstream ejecting head (“driving signals can be generated and supplied such that the ejection speeds (initial speeds) are made to differ, and, the smaller the droplet volume of an ink drop, the faster the initial speed”; col. 8, ll. 8-11; therefore, an upstream head with the smaller droplet nozzle row would be driven to be faster than a downstream head with the larger droplet nozzle row), or to delay the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the upstream ejecting head (not required due to “or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fuji to separate the nozzle rows into separate ejecting heads as taught by Maesaka. This is understood as design choice, but would otherwise be for the purpose of improved control to selectively increase the propulsive force applied to liquid droplets to decrease print quality degradation as taught by Maesaka (col. 11, ll. 9-11).
Regarding claim 4, Fujii as modified by [Yasuda and] Maesaka teaches the liquid droplet ejecting apparatus according to claim 3, and Fujii with the modified line head configuration from Maesaka (as applied to claim 3; upstream small nozzle row and downstream large nozzle rows are separated and staggered) teaches wherein
the controller is configured to increase the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located in a non-overlap area of the downstream ejecting head, to be higher than the ejection velocity of the liquid droplet by a nozzle, of the plurality of nozzles, located in an overlap area of the downstream ejecting head (end portion nozzles are driven to be faster than remaining nozzles; col. 14, ll. 4-9; with the staggered configuration from Maesaka, nozzles at the end portion are in a non-overlap area; Fig. 13B annotated; therefore, nozzles in the non-overlap area of the downstream ejecting head are driven to be faster than nozzles in the overlap area of the head), or to delay the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the nozzle located in the non-overlap area (not required due to “or”),
the non-overlap area being an area which does not overlap with the upstream ejecting head in the conveying direction and the overlap area being an area which overlaps with the upstream ejecting head in the conveying direction (Maesaka: annotated Fig. 13B to demonstrate non-overlap are now constituting end nozzle of downstream head).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fuji to separate the nozzle rows into separate, staggered ejecting heads as taught by Maesaka, wherein end portions form a non-overlap area such that the non-overlap area nozzles are driven to have a faster ejection speed to counter stronger conveyance airflow at the end portions as taught by Fuji (Fig. 13B-17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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 8, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of “the controller is configured to execute for each of the plurality of the actuators:
a process of increasing a driving voltage to the actuator by a change amount which is a greater one of a first change amount by which the driving voltage to the actuator is to be increased and which is preset based on a conveyance airflow flowing in the crossing direction, and a second change amount by which the driving voltage to the actuator is to be increased and which is preset based on the conveyance airflow flowing in the conveying direction; and
a process of changing the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the nozzle corresponding to the actuator, in accordance with a difference between the first change amount and the second change amount” in the last lines of the claim. While change amounts (voltage and timing) have been noted as being able to be preset and vary by nozzle position (see US 20210394511 A1 to Kusunoki et al., Fig. 11-15, 21, 23, 25), change amounts being preset based on both a crossing direction and a conveyance direction of a conveyance air flow have not been taught by prior art of record. Therefore, these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, making the claim indicative of including allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of “the controller is configured to execute for each of the plurality of the actuators:
a process of increasing a driving voltage to the actuator by a first change amount which is preset based on a conveyance airflow flowing in the crossing direction; and
a process of changing the ejection timing of the liquid droplet by the nozzle corresponding to the actuator, in accordance with a difference between the first change amount and a second change amount which is preset based on the conveyance airflow flowing in the conveying direction” in the last lines of the claim. While change amounts (voltage and timing) have been noted as being able to be preset and vary by nozzle position (see US 20210394511 A1 to Kusunoki et al., Fig. 11-15, 21, 23, 25), change amounts being preset based on both a crossing direction and a conveyance direction of a conveyance air flow have not been taught by prior art of record. Therefore, these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination, have not been found, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record, making the claim indicative of including allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ono et al. (JP 2005144724 A, from IDS) teaches wherein a liquid droplet of a nozzle more effected by airflow has a higher ejection velocity than that of a liquid droplet of a nozzle less effected by airflow.
Suzuki (US 20180257377 A1) teaches a liquid droplet ejecting apparatus relevant to at least claim 1.
Saito (US 20130335470 A1 and JP 201400724 A, from IDS) teaches about head gaps and correction time to adjust trajectory, relevant to claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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 X 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.
10 August 2026
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights