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 Group II, claims 7-15 in the reply filed on 11 September 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11 September 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 July 2025, have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 13 May 2025 are accepted.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at page 1, paragraph 0001, U.S. Patent Application No. 18/320,107 is now United States Patent No. 12,311,680.
2. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
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.
Claims 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa (US 2017/0190190). The examiner notes to applicant that Yoshikawa claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 to Japanese Patent Application No. 2016-000398, filed 05 January 2016.
With respect to claim 7, Yoshikawa discloses a non-transitory medium with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving input (Fig. 7, Start) that is indicative of a request to print an image (paragraph 0091);
detecting (Fig. 7, Step S14, Yes) a defective nozzle (Fig. 8, element 35) among a plurality of nozzles (Fig. 3, array of element 73) that are responsible for ejecting eject ink onto a medium (Fig. 2, element P) to form the image (paragraph 0044); and
implementing a compensation scheme (Fig. 7, Step S15) in which a pixel to be printed (paragraph 0095) by the defective nozzle is
(i) assigned to a fully complementary nozzle (paragraph 0055, i.e. supplementing nozzle) when at least one fully complementary nozzle is available (Fig. 8, supplementing nozzle), and
(ii) assigned to a partially complementary nozzle (paragraph 0108, i.e. substitute process) when no fully complementary nozzles are available.
The examiner notes to applicant that the limitations “complimentary” and “partially complementary” are broad in scope and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Yoshikawa as applied above.
With respect to claim 8, Yoshikawa discloses the fully complementary nozzle (paragraph 0055, i.e. supplementing nozzle) is able to print in the same locations as the defective nozzle (Fig. 8, element 35), and wherein the partially complementary nozzle (paragraph 0108, i.e. substitute process) is able to print in the same raster row as the defective nozzle but in opposite odd (Fig. 8, i.e. odd raster lines) or even positions (Fig. 8, i.e. even raster lines).
With respect to claim 9, Yoshikawa discloses the processor (Fig. 1, element 12) is part of a printer (Fig. 1, element 1a) that includes the plurality of nozzles (Fig. 1, element 7).
With respect to claim 10, Yoshikawa discloses as part of the compensation scheme (Fig. 7, Step S15), when no fully (paragraph 0055, i.e. supplementing nozzle) or partially complementary (paragraph 0108, i.e. substitute process) nozzles are available, a value of a neighboring pixel to be printed by a neighboring nozzle is modified (paragraph 0113, i.e. different nozzle group) to account for the defective nozzle (Fig. 8, element 35).
With respect to claim 11, Yoshikawa discloses the operations further comprise: enumerating a list (paragraph 0053, i.e. supplementing printing data) of fully (paragraph 0055, i.e. supplementing nozzle) and partially complementary (paragraph 0108, i.e. substitute process) nozzles for the defective nozzle (Fig. 8, element 35).
With respect to claim 12, Yoshikawa discloses in response to a determination that the list (paragraph 0053, i.e. supplementing printing data) includes one or more fully complementary nozzles (paragraph 0055, i.e. supplementing nozzle), the fully complementary nozzle is randomly selected (paragraph 0113, i.e. different nozzle group) from among the one or more fully complementary nozzles.
With respect to claim 13, Yoshikawa discloses the operations further comprise: accessing a nozzle map (Fig. 8, element Ba) that includes (i) a series of raster rows (Fig. 8, elements L1-L6) and (ii) a series of pass columns (Fig. 8, elements Pass 1 – Pass 8), wherein each raster row is representative of a separate raster line of the image (paragraph 0084), and wherein the series of pass columns is representative of a sequence of passes of a printhead over the medium to print the image (paragraph 0080).
With respect to claim 14, Yoshikawa discloses in the nozzle map (Fig. 8, element Ba), an intersection of a raster row (Fig. 8, one of elements L1-L6) and a pass column (Fig. 8, one of elements Pass 1 – Pass 8) is indicative of a pixel location in the image that is to include ink ejected by one of the plurality of nozzles (paragraph 0095).
With respect to claim 15, Yoshikawa discloses the fully complementary nozzle (paragraph 0055, i.e. supplementing nozzle) or the partially complementary nozzle (paragraph 0108, i.e. substitute process) is selected based on an analysis of pass-nozzle pairs in the nozzle map (paragraph 0109).
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 7-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,507,670. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 10,507,670 claims a similar process. The instant claims are broader in scope than the claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,507,670 because the instant claims remove elements such as the “print job”, “print mode”, and “mask”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the removal of these elements does not alter the device of the invention as a whole.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 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 (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 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 09/28/2026
