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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1 & 3-4 in the reply filed on September 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a nozzle of the second nozzle group which is used and recording the second layer” is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner is assuming the Applicant intended to state “a nozzle of the second nozzle group which is used for recording the second layer”, based on the Applicant’s disclosure. 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.
Claim 1 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.
The phrase “relatively have a predetermined positional relationship” in claim 1 has relative terms (as italicized) which render the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively” and “predetermined positional relationship” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to claim certain structural elements have a positional relationship relative to one another or if the degree of a positional relationship is a relative measurement (e.g., a range). Moreover, it is unclear what predetermined positions, or ranges of positions, are being claimed. The ambiguity of the claim language prompts many questions regarding the scope of the invention, with just a few provided for illustrative purposes: Is the predetermined positional relationship a specific value or a range of values? If so, what is the scope of the range? Is the predetermined position a distance between specific structural elements, and if so, which elements? What direction of orientation is the distance (e.g., horizontal, vertical)? How many elements are included in the positional relationship?
Additionally, the term “relative positional relationship” [between the first layer and the second layer] in claim 1 is a relative term that rends the claim indefinite. The term “relative positional relationship” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to claim certain structural elements have a positional relationship relative to one another or if the degree of a positional relationship is a relative measurement (e.g., a range). Moreover, it is unclear what positions, or ranges of positions, are being claimed. The ambiguity of the claim language prompts many questions regarding the scope of the invention, with just a few provided for illustrative purposes: Is the positional relationship a specific value or a range of values? If so, what is the scope of the range? What direction of orientation is the distance (e.g., horizontal, vertical)? Although Applicant has specified the direction a nozzle can shift, that claim language does not specify the relative positional relationship between the claimed layers.
The Examiner invites the Applicant to request a telephonic interview to discuss amendment language that can sufficiently overcome the current 112(b) rejections without incorporating new matter that would be beyond the scope of the disclosure provided.
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, 3, & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomida & Nakajima (US 20100309240 A1; herein referred to as “Tomida”).
With respect to Claim 1, Tomida teaches a recording device (Tomida: ¶0013 & Fig. 1) comprising:
a conveying unit (“203”) that conveys a medium (“S”) in a predetermined conveying direction (“Y” direction; Tomida: ¶0031, ¶0028, & Fig. 1);
a first nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “120”) that discharges a first liquid (i.e., cyan ink from discharge ports in “120”) onto the conveyed medium (“S”) to form a first layer (i.e., printed ink on medium using a nozzle in a nozzle row in “120”; Tomida: ¶0031, ¶0042-0044, & Fig. 1, 3-4, & 6-7);
a second nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “110”) that is located downstream of the first nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “120”) in the conveying direction (“Y” direction) of the medium (“S”) and discharges a second liquid (i.e., cyan ink from discharge ports in “110” or other non-cyan inks) after formation of the first layer to form a second layer (i.e., nozzle groups are overlapping in region “P” such that the structure can enable ink from a downstream nozzle row in “110” discharge/layer an ink droplet on top of an ink droplet layer previously deposited from a nozzle row in “120”; Tomida: ¶0042-0044; Fig. 3-4 & Fig. 6-7; Also see MPEP 2113). Note that Tomida uses the illustrative examples of two nozzle groups each depositing cyan inks (Figs. 4 & 7A-C). Additionally, note that Tomida’s Fig. 6 depicts that Tomida’s nozzle groups have the ability to overlap discharged liquids on top of one other (i.e., create layers of ink; see MPEP 2113 which states “product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”). The Examiner believes that two layers of cyan inks would sufficiently meet the claim limitations of “first liquid” and “second liquid” given the liquids in different nozzle groups are obviously not liquid stored in the same discharge ports and, moreover, Applicant has not specified the two liquids must be different hues or even different liquids beyond being liquids stored in different locations. However, to ensure compact prosecution of Applicant’s case, the Examiner also notes that, as shown in Tomida’s Fig. 3, “110” has other nozzle groups that discharge non-cyan inks, that are downstream from the cyan nozzle rows in “120” and structurally have the ability to be used to print a different ink color on top of a layer of cyan ink.
a carriage unit (“202”) that causes the first nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “120”) and the second nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “110”) to perform a main scanning operation (i.e., printing in the “X” direction) while crossing the conveying direction (“Y” direction) of the medium (“S”) (Tomida: ¶0031, ¶0042-0044, & Figs. 1 & 3);
a detection unit (i.e., “optical sensor 30”) that acquires an error in a conveyance amount (i.e., “conveyance error”) of the medium (“S”) by the conveying unit (“203”; Tomida: ¶0039, ¶0095-0101, ¶0110, & Figs. 1-3 & 11). Note that Tomida teaches that a user can use manual inspection or alternatively “a high resolution optical sensor may be used for determining the shift of the line” (Tomida: ¶0110).
and a control unit (“50”) that controls the conveying unit (i.e., “83” moves conveying unit “203”), the first nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “120”), the second nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “110”), and the carriage unit (i.e., “82” moves carriage unit “202”) to form the first layer (i.e., ink printed on “S” from a nozzle in nozzle row in “120”) and the second layer (i.e., ink printed on the first layer from a nozzle in nozzle row in “110”) so as to relatively have a predetermined positional relationship (i.e., both layers are printed in a position that was predetermined and their positions are located in some relationship to one another; Tomida: ¶0039, ¶0042-0044, & Figs. 1-4 & 6). As discussed above regarding the 112(b) rejection, the “relatively hav[ing] a predetermined positional relationship” between the layers is insufficiently defined and a broad interpretation has been applied during this examination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that, because Tomida teaches that the nozzle groups (which deposit each layer) have predetermined positions for discharging ink, therefore this would result in predetermined positions, and positional relationships, between the layers they deposit.
wherein the control unit (“50”) forms a test pattern at a predetermined position (i.e., “conveyance error detection pattern” shown in Fig. 10A-C and “490”) using the first nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “120”; Tomida: ¶0060, ¶0062-0066, ¶0091 & Figs. 2, 10A-C, & 7A-C).
the detection unit (“optical sensor 30”) detects the test pattern (i.e., “conveyance error detection pattern” shown in Fig. 10A-C and “490”) and acquires an error in a conveyance amount (i.e., steps in Fig. 11 to acquire the “conveyance error”) of the medium (“S”) by the conveying unit (“203”) based on a detection position (i.e., the position of a conveyance error detection pattern; Tomida: ¶0039, ¶0095-0101, ¶0110, ¶0060, ¶0062-0066, ¶0091 & Figs. 1-2, 11, 7A-C, & 10A-C). Note that Tomida teaches that a user can use manual inspection or alternatively “a high resolution optical sensor may be used for determining the shift of the line” (Tomida: ¶0110).
and the control unit (“50”) adjusts a relative positional relationship between the first layer (i.e., ink printed on “S” from a nozzle in nozzle row in “120”) and the second layer (i.e., ink printed on the first layer from a nozzle in nozzle row in “110”) by shifting, in the conveying direction (“Y” direction), a nozzle of the second nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “110”) which is used and recording the second layer (i.e., printing ink on top of the first layer) based on an error in the conveyance amount (i.e., “based on the detected amount of the conveyance error, the relative shift amount of the recording position of the nozzle arrays in the conveying direction…is changed”; Tomida: ¶0010, ¶0052 & Fig. 1, 3-4, 11). Note that Tomida’s teaching of “nozzle arrays” includes a nozzle of the second nozzle group and Applicant has not claimed that this nozzle is shifted to the exclusion of any other nozzles being shifted. Additionally, as discussed above regarding the 112(b) rejection, the “relative positional relationship” between the layers is insufficiently defined and a broad interpretation has been applied during this examination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that, because Tomida teaches that the nozzle groups (which deposit each layer) are adjusted, therefore this would adjust the relative positional relationship between the layers they deposit.
With respect to Claim 3, Tomida teaches the recording device according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit includes a sensor (i.e., “optical sensor 30”) that is disposed movably in a main scanning direction (i.e., “30” is on the carriage “202”, which moves in the “X” direction) in a state of facing the medium (“S”) together with the second nozzle group (i.e., a nozzle row in “110”) and detects the test pattern (i.e., “conveyance error detection pattern” shown in Fig. 10A-C and “490”; Tomida: ¶0039, ¶0067, ¶0095-0101, ¶0110, & Figs. 1-3, 11, 7A-C, & 10A-C).
With respect to Claim 4, Tomida teaches the recording device (Tomida: ¶0013 & Fig. 1) according to claim 1, wherein the test pattern is a plurality of ruled lines (i.e., see ruled lines in “conveyance error detection pattern” shown in Fig. 10A-C and “490”; Tomida: ¶0060, ¶0062-0066, ¶0091 & Figs. 2, 10A-C, & 7A-C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights