DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “printed indication” is believed to be intended as “printed indicia”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-14, 25, 28 and 29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (6,506,456) in view of Joshi et al. (2003/0004824), Yamashiro et al. (2009/0028586), Masuo (2016/0257123) and official notice.
Regarding claims 11, 24 and 28, Sharma teaches a system for printing variable data on a set of absorbent articles in a single continuous printing run
absorbent stock (col. 5, lines 23-27, napkins) comprising a plurality of discrete absorbent articles defining the set of absorbent articles, each absorbent article comprising a plurality of absorbent and porous paper or paper-based layers (col. 5, lines 23-27, see official notice below) configured to absorb liquid (col. 5, lines 23-27, note that this is the case); and
a digital printing engine (col. 5, lines 49-53) containing liquid printing medium (col. 5, lines 49-53, ink) and being configured to print the set of data (col. 5, lines 49-65) directly on a first absorbent and porous paper of a first layer of the absorbent stock with liquid printing medium (fig. 3, item 82, top sheet), wherein the digital printing engine is plateless or dieless (col. 5, lines 49-53); and
wherein the system is configured such that the liquid printing medium stands on the first absorbent and porous paper or paper-based surface of a layer of each discrete absorbent article (col. 6, lines 7-30, note that all or some of the deposited ink necessarily “stands on” the first layer for at least some period of time. Note also that Examiner is under the impression that the some amount of absorption occurs in the claimed invention. Assuming this is the case, it would seem inexact to say that all of the liquid stands on the first layer because this would imply no liquid is absorbed) to reduce bleeding of the liquid printing medium before drying or curing (col. 6, lines 7-30, note that bleeding is an objectively undesirable effect of printing with liquid, and thus this claimed language is simply a desired result),
a transport device (fig. 1, item 49) configured to transport the absorbent stock (fig. 1, item 39) to and from the digital printing engine (see fig. 1).
While Examiner maintains that Sharma teaches a system configured to control an amount of migration of liquid printing medium into a substrate, including controlling the liquid printing medium to only minimally permeate the substrate, Examiner also points to MPEP 2114, which states that an apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does, and that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate a claimed apparatus from the prior art. Here, all the structural limitations of the claimed system are disclosed in the prior art, and an amount of permeation of liquid printing medium into a substrate has been claimed, but the claimed amount of permeation is directed to the manner of operating the device, i.e., print resolution, ink droplet volume, print density, etc. Because the claim is directed to an printing system, i.e., an apparatus, and because the permeation limitations are directed to how the apparatus is intended to be used, the permeation limitation does not add patentable weight to the claim. Moreover, the same rationale is applied to the limitation “wherein at least one of the absorbent articles of the set of absorbent articles includes printed indicia different from printing indication on another discrete absorbent article in the set.” That is, all components of the claimed system are disclosed in the prior art, and the addition of a limitation directed to the content of the printed matter would seem to cover what the device does, not what it is. Alternatively, Joshi is incorporated below for such a disclosure.
Sharma does not explicitly teach wherein a napkin is a folded article. Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious that a napkin is folded into a article with multiple layers.
Sharma in view of official notice does not teach a database or file containing a set of data comprising the variable data or wherein at least one of the absorbent articles of the set of absorbent articles includes printed indicia different from printing indication on another discrete absorbent article in the set
Sharma in view of Joshi and official notice does not teach an optical sensor operably coupled to the digital printing engine, the optical sensor being configured to detect when the absorbent stock is positioned at the digital printing engine. Yamashiro teaches an optical sensor to detect when a media is positioned at a digital printing engine (Yamashiro, [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of invention to add the optical sensor disclosed by Yamashiro to the device disclosed by Sharma in view of Joshi and official notice because doing so would allow for the detecting of print media, i.e., absorbent articles prior to printing, thereby ensuring proper alignment between the articles and the digital printing engine.
Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro and official notice does expressly not teach wherein the system is configured to dry or cure the liquid printing medium before the discrete absorbent articles are collated or stacked. Masuo teaches printing ink onto an absorbent medium, curing the ink on the medium and then stacking the medium (Masuo, see fig. 1, Note that media are cured at 22 and stacked at 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to cure ink so as to dry it and then stack the medium on which the ink has been cured, as disclosed by Masuo, in the device disclosed by Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro and official notice because doing so was a common media processing sequence at the time of invention.
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro, Masuo and official notice teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the liquid printing medium comprises a liquid toner, a liquid pigment, solvent-based ink, aqueous inks, or combinations hereof (Sharma, col. 5, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 13, Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro, Masuo and official notice teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the liquid printing medium comprises a liquid toner (Sharma, col. 5, lines 40-50)
Regarding claim 14, Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro, Masuo and official notice teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the liquid printing medium comprises a solvent-based or aqueous ink (Sharma, col. 2, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 29, Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro, Masuo and official notice teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the absorbent stock further comprises a second layer adjacent the first layer opposite the first surface, the second layer having a first absorbent and porous paper or paper-based surface, and wherein the second layer is significantly free of the liquid medium printed on the first surface of the first layer (Sharma, Note that upon folding the napkin disclosed, the claimed limitation would be met).
Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro, Masuo and official notice and Dejong et al. (2013/0033535).
Regarding claim 24, all limitations are disclosed by Sharma in view of Joshi, Yamashiro, Masuo and official notice except for those pertaining to the optical sensor and the transport device comprising a vacuum conveyor. Dejong teaches these (Dejong, see fig. 1, Note optical sensor 132 and vacuum conveyor 106/108/112/110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a vacuum conveyor with a sheet sensor of the type disclosed by Dejong to implement the printing scheme disclosed by Sharma in view of Joshi and official notice because doing so would amount to combining a known sheet transport arrangement with a known sheet customization technique to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Miyawaki in view of Joshi and official notice does not go into detail about its sheet transport scheme, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to look to Dejong for such a teaching.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights