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 April 22, 2025, was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: density-variation detection part 1 referred to in ¶[0020] of the Specification.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 recites on line 13, “When the drive condition for the recording heads has been corrected to a specified number of times, it is decided whether or not the density information about the recording heads has been converging (emphasis added).” This recitation fails to clarify whether any of the previously recited structural elements decide whether or not the density information about the recording heads has been converging, thus rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and extremely broad. For example, by granting this recitation its broadest reasonable interpretation, a human operator could act as an element making the decision regarding the density information. An example amendment to the claim that would overcome this rejection would read as follows, “When the drive condition for the recording heads has been corrected to a specified number of times, the controller is configured to decide whether or not the density information about the recording heads has been converging (emphasis added).”
Further, claim 1 recites, “where given that the density information about the recording heads has not been converging toward the specified value, the threshold value is changed (emphasis added).” Again, this recitation fails to clarify whether any of the previously recited structural elements change the threshold value, thus rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and extremely broad. For example, by granting this recitation its broadest reasonable interpretation, a human operator could act as an element making the change to the threshold value. An example amendment to the claim that would overcome this rejection would read as follows, “where given that the density information about the recording heads has not been converging toward the specified value, the controller is configured to change the threshold value (emphasis added).”
For the purpose of compact examination, both of the above-recited operations are being interpreted to be carried out by the controller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the inkjet recording apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, the drive condition for the recording heads is repeatedly corrected until the acquired density information about the recording heads comes to not more than a predetermined threshold value; and when the drive condition for the recording heads has been corrected to a specified number of times, it is decided whether or not the density information about the recording heads has been converging toward a specified value each time the drive condition for the recording heads is corrected, where given that the density information about the recording heads has not been converging toward the specified value, the threshold value is changed.
The closest art of record, Kayahara (US 20190366711 A1) teaches a printing apparatus comprising controller capable of performing a correction mode, wherein the controller corrects the density of a printed image by changing the voltage of a driving waveform, and in the case that a target voltage is outside the range of a first driving waveform, the controller switches to a second driving waveform (figs. 8-11). However, Kayahara fails to teach repeatedly iterating the correction mode, and deciding if density information has converged toward a specified value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kubota et al. (US 20110285774 A1) teaches a printing device configured to perform a correction method wherein a concentration of a test pattern is compared to a threshold, and a voltage is adjusted if the concentration is above the threshold. Kawafuji (US 20200290367 A1) teaches a printing apparatus configured to perform a correction method wherein a plurality of test patterns are printed, and a plurality of density adjustments are made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights