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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2025, 1/12/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12214603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are obvious in view of the claims in the patent as discussed below.
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘603 teaches a method for enhancing resolution of a radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer, the method comprising (claim 1 lines 45-47):
determining, by one or more processors, an exposure energy required for each grid of multiple grids of a photosensitive medium based on a corresponding subpixel of multiple subpixels in a sub-scan direction of an image to be printed on the photosensitive medium (claim 1 lines 54-56,48-53);
allocating, by the one or more processors, the exposure energy required for each grid into a first exposure level and a second exposure level (claim 1 lines 57-59); and
exposing, by the one or more processors, each grid of the photosensitive medium to the corresponding first exposure level and the corresponding second exposure level sequentially using an exposure element as the photosensitive medium passes through the radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer in the sub-scan direction, wherein each grid is smaller in the sub-scan direction than the exposure element (claim 1 lines 60-67).
Regarding claim 22, claims 1, 2 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches further comprising generating, by the one or more processors, the multiple subpixels in the sub-scan direction based on an image data set of the image (claim 1 lines 48-50), and wherein generating the multiple subpixels in the sub-scan direction comprises (claim 2 lines 1-2):
generating, by the one or more processors, a scaled image data set by scaling the image data set (claim 2 lines 3-4); and
up-sampling, by the one or more processors, a set of image pixels of the scaled image data set to generate a set of image subpixels in the sub-scan direction, wherein a number of image subpixels in the set of image subpixels is more than a number of image pixels in the set of image pixels (claim 2 lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 23, claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein up-sampling the set of image pixels of the scaled image data set comprises interpolating between at least one pair of adjacent image pixels in the sub-scan direction within the scaled image data set (claim 3).
Regarding claim 24, claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein interpolating between the at least one pair of adjacent image pixels in the sub-scan direction is performed in response to determining that a difference between the exposure energy levels of at least one other pair of adjacent image pixels in the sub-scan direction within the scaled image data set is larger than a threshold (claim 4 lines 17-23).
Regarding claim 25, claim 5 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein the threshold is between a maximum value and a minimum value of the exposure energy levels of the set of image pixels from the scaled image data set (claim 5).
Regarding claim 26, claim 6 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein the difference between the exposure energy levels of the at least one other pair of adjacent image pixels being larger than the threshold is indicative of a sharp edge within the image (claim 6).
Regarding claim 27, claim 7 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein determining the exposure energy required for each grid comprises applying, by the one or more processors, an exposure energy level offset to at least one grid of the multiple grids (claim 7).
Regarding claim 28, claim 8 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, a printing resolution of the radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer based on a spot size of the exposure element (claim 8).
Regarding claim 29, claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein generating the scaled image data set by scaling the image data set is performed based on the determined printing resolution of the radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer (claim 9).
Regarding claim 30, claim 10 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein each grid of the photosensitive medium is a rectangle having a first length in a first direction and a second length in a second direction, wherein the first length is equal to a first exposure element length of the exposure element along a main scan direction and the second length is equal to half of a second exposure element length of the exposure element along the sub-scan direction, the main scan direction being perpendicular to the sub-scan direction (claim 10).
Regarding claim 31, claim 11 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein a total exposure energy level for at least one grid of the multiple grids exceeds the corresponding first exposure level for the grid plus the corresponding second exposure level for the grid (claim 11).
Regarding claim 32, claim 12 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein the second exposure level for a first grid of the multiple grids is equal to the first exposure level for a second grid of the multiple grids as the photosensitive medium is moved in the sub-scan direction (claim 12).
Regarding claim 33, claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘603 teaches a method for enhancing resolution of a radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer, the method comprising (claim 13 lines 1-3):
determining, by one or more processors, an exposure energy required for each grid of multiple grids of a photosensitive medium based on a corresponding image subpixel of multiple subpixels in a sub-scan direction of an image to be printed on the photosensitive medium (claim 13 lines 10-13,4-9);
allocating, by the one or more processors, the exposure energy required for each grid into a set of sub-energy exposure levels, wherein a number of sub-energy exposure levels in the set of sub-energy exposure levels is N (claim 13 lines 14-17); and
exposing, by the one or more processors, each grid of the photosensitive medium to the corresponding set of sub-energy exposure levels sequentially using an exposure element as the photosensitive medium passes through the radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer in the sub-scan direction, wherein each grid is smaller in the sub-scan direction than the exposure element (claim 13 lines 18-24).
Regarding claim 34, claims 13, 14 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches further comprising generating, by the one or more processors, the multiple subpixels in the sub-scan direction based on an image data set of the image (claim 13 lines 4-9), wherein generating the multiple subpixels (claim 14 lines 25-26) comprises:
generating, by the one or more processors, a scaled image data set by scaling the image data set (claim 14 lines 27-28); and
up-sampling, by the one or more processors, a set of image pixels of the scaled image data set to generate a set of image subpixels in the sub-scan direction, wherein a number of image subpixels in the set of image subpixels is N times a number of image pixels in the set of image pixels (claim 14 lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 35, claim 15 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein up-sampling the set of image pixels of the scaled image data set to generate the set of image subpixels in the sub-scan direction comprises interpolating between at least one pair of adjacent image pixels in the sub-scan direction within the scaled image data set (claim 15).
Regarding claim 36, claim 16 of U.S. Patent ‘603 teaches a radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer comprising (claim 16 lines 42-43):
an exposure element array including a set of exposure elements (claim 16 lines 44-45);
a media transportation system configured to transport a photosensitive medium along a sub-scan direction (claim 16 lines 46-47);
a controller including a processor and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (claim 16 lines 48-50):
determine an exposure energy required for each grid of multiple grids of the photosensitive medium based on a corresponding subpixel of multiple subpixels in a sub-scan direction of an image to be printed on the photosensitive medium (claim 16 lines 4-6);
allocate the exposure energy required for each grid into a first exposure level and a second exposure level (claim 16 lines 7-9); and
expose each grid of the photosensitive medium to the corresponding first exposure level and the corresponding second exposure level sequentially using an exposure element of the set of exposure elements as the photosensitive medium passes through the radiation sensitive microcapsule-based printer in the sub-scan direction, wherein each grid is smaller in the sub-scan direction than the exposure element (claim 16 lines 10-17).
Regarding claim 37, claims 16, 17 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to generate multiple subpixels in the sub-scan direction based on an image data set of the image (claim 16 lines 51-53,1-3), and wherein generating the multiple subpixels in the sub-scan direction comprises (claim 17 lines 18-20):
generating a scaled image data set by scaling the image data set (claim 17 lines 21-22); and
up-sampling a set of image pixels of the scaled image data set to generate a set of image subpixels in the sub-scan direction, wherein a number of image subpixels in the set of image subpixels exceeds a number of image pixels in the set of image pixels (claim 17 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 38, claim 18 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein up-sampling the set of image pixels of the scaled image data set comprises interpolating between at least one pair of adjacent image pixels in the sub-scan direction within the scaled image data set (claim 18).
Regarding claim 39, claim 19 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein up-sampling the set of image pixels of the scaled image data set further comprises: comparing exposure energy levels of pairs of adjacent image pixels in the sub-scan direction within the scaled image data set (claim 19).
Regarding claim 40, claim 20 of U.S. Patent ‘603 further teaches wherein the comparison comprises determining whether a difference in the exposure energy levels exceeds a threshold that is between a maximum value and a minimum value of the exposure energy levels of the set of image pixels from the scaled image data set (claim 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENOK D LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1615. The examiner can normally be reached General Schedule 9:00 am- 5:00 pm, IFP.
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.
/HENOK D LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights