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 .
Claims Status
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 11/26/2025. Claims 1-3 and 5 pending. Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant's arguments and claim amendment with respect to the rejection of present claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2762317 to Winzinger (“Winzinger”, see English translation), and over Winzinger in view of Vriens et al. (US 5,813,753; “Vriens”) have been fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Applicant contends (1) neither Winzinger nor Vriens teaches the claimed digital printing device of instant claim 1. In that, applicant argues that Winzinger does not teach the use of a filter (see remarks, page 4, fifth para). Applicant further argues that Vriens does not teach the inclusion of the claimed filter, as Vriens is directed to a UV/blue light-emitting diode, and per applicant, “[A]s can be seen in column 5, starting at line 35 of the Vriens patent, the light-emitting diode shown in Figure 4 is equipped with a glass plate 46 that serves as UV protection. Further, per applicant, the light-emitting diodes of Vriens are also each provided with a "glass plate" … such a "glass plate" is always intended to absorb UV light and blue light (see remarks, page 4, fifth and sixth para). Per applicant, the purpose of such glass plate contradicts the subject matter of instant claim 1 (see remarks, page 4, fifth and sixth para, page 5, first and second para).
In response to applicant’s contention, Applicant's arguments have been carefully studied and fully considered, but they are not found persuasive for at least the following reasons.
First of all, there is no dispute that Winzinger does not specifically teach the inclusion of a short-pass filter as instantly claimed. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Vriens is cited in this regard.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s characteristic of Vriens. In particular, applicant’s argument that “the glass plate 46 that serves as UV protection and/or such a glass plate is always intended to absorb UV light and blue light” is misplaced. The argued element of “the glass plate” is not what is relied upon for rejection, and as such, applicant’s argument that the purpose of such glass plate contradicts the subject matter of instant claim 1 is not found persuasive.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, Vriens clearly teaches its UV LED device includes short-pass filter. In the present case, Vriens teaches a UV device, in particular, a light emitting device/UV LED having enhanced light output (col. 1, lines 5-10). It is noted that Vriens teaches its UV LED includes short-pass filter (col. 5, lines 35-56, see Fig. 4 below, short-pass filter 47, selectively pass light, i.e., dichroic filter) that is added on the front side of the LED stack for reflect part of the light of the wanted wavelengths (col. 5, lines 51-56). The short-pass filter 47 is a sperate element from the argued element glass plate 46 (see Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The rejections below are updated to address the present claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2762317 to Winzinger (“Winzinger”, see English translation) in view of Vriens et al. (US 5,813,753; “Vriens”).
Regarding claim 1, Winzinger teaches a digital printing device (Fig. 10) for printing workpieces (workpiece/container 27, Fig. 10, para [0011]-[0015]), comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
688
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- a print head carrier (30, Fig. 10) to which a print head (20, Fig. 10) for dispensing ink droplets in a printing direction (para [0011], [0027] [0171], the printing plane/direction) and a drying unit (the drying unit 31 includes the UV lamps 23/24/25, Fig. 10) for curing the ink droplets are attached (para [0027] [0041] [0171]),
- wherein the print head and the drying unit delimit a working space (para [0174], the free space/working space 26 between the print heads and the UV lamps in Fig. 10), in which an application of a printed image to an outer surface of a workpiece (the surface of the workpiece 27) with the print head (20, para [0011]) and a drying of the printed image on the workpiece with the drying unit is provided (para [0011] [0171]-[0176] [0179]), wherein the drying unit is designed to provide electromagnetic waves for photochemical polymerization of the ink droplets (the drying unit 31 includes the UV lamps 23/24/25 provides electromagnetic waves, meeting the claimed limitations, see para [0011] [0171]),
- wherein the drying unit comprises a radiation source (32, 33, 34 in Fig. 10) which is designed to provide electromagnetic waves with an intensity maximum at a wavelength of about 200 to 480 nm (para [0010]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of a wavelength from the group of 395 nanometers, 385 nanometers, and 365 nanometers. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Winzinger teaches using UV lamp which is designed to provide the radiation source of electromagnetic waves. Winzinger does not specifically teach the inclusion of a specific short-pass filter arranged between the radiation source and the working space as instantly claimed.
Vriens teaches a UV device, in particular, a light emitting device/UV LED having enhanced light output (col. 1, lines 5-10). Vriens teaches its UV LED includes short-pass filter (col. 5, lines 35-56, Fig. 4 below, short-pass filter 47, selectively pass light, i.e., dichroic filter) that is added on the front side of the LED stack for reflect part of the light of the wanted wavelengths (col. 5, lines 51-56). Vriens does not specifically teaches its short-pass filter with a specific cut-off wavelength as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to specific cut-off wavelength (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the short-pass filter with cut-off wavelength through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the filter once produced (i.e., selectively pass light of the desired/wanted wavelengths), which would have arrived at a workable cut-off wavelength that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital printing device of Winzinger, to replace the UV lamp of Winzinger that provides the radiation source, with the UV device (i.e., the light emitting device/UV LED of Vriens) which includes a short-pass filter as taught by Vriens with desired cut-off wavelength (col. 1, lines 5-10, col. 5, lines 35-56), to provide more precise and desired radiation source depending on the intended applications, because Vriens teaches its UV LED includes short-pass filter (col. 5, lines 35-56, selectively pass light, i.e., dichroic filter) for reflect part of the light of the wanted wavelengths (col. 5, lines 51-56), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory digital printing device that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Winzinger teaches using UV lamp which is designed to provide the radiation source of electromagnetic waves. Winzinger does not specifically teach the radiation source is a light-emitting diode in the specific manner as instantly claimed.
Vriens teaches a UV device, in particular, a light emitting diode device/UV LED having enhanced light output (col. 1, lines 5-10). Vriens teaches its UV LED includes short-pass filter (col. 5, lines 35-56, selectively pass light) for reflect part of the light of the wanted wavelengths (col. 5, lines 51-56), of which the UV LED of Vriens is considered being a light emitting diode device provides monochromatic electromagnetic waves meeting the claimed limitations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the digital printing device of Winzinger, to replace the UV lamp of Winzinger that provides the radiation source, with the UV device (i.e., the light emitting diode device/UV LED of Vriens) as taught by Vriens, for the benefit of having enhanced output and the capability of reflecting part of the light of the wanted wavelengths as taught by Vriens, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory digital printing device that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Winzinger teaches using UV lamp which is designed to provide the radiation source of electromagnetic waves. Winzinger does not specifically teach the radiation source is configured in the specific manner as instantly claimed.
Vriens teaches a UV device, in particular, a light emitting device/UV LED having enhanced light output (col. 1, lines 5-10). Vriens does not specifically teaches its radiation source is configured in the specific manner as instantly claimed, i.e., at 50 percent of the maximum radiation intensity for providing electromagnetic waves in a wavelength interval of less than 13 nanometers. But Vriens teaches the radiation source intensity is a result effective variable, by teaching its UV LED includes short-pass filter (col. 5, lines 35-56, selectively pass light, i.e., dichroic filter) for reflect part of the light of the wanted wavelengths, i.e., which affects the radiation intensity (col. 5, lines 51-56).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to specific radiation intensity (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the radiation source intensity through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties of the radiation source once produced (i.e., with desired intensity and reflects part of the light of the desired/wanted wavelengths), which would have arrived at a workable the radiation source intensity that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 5, Winzinger teaches the print head carrier (30, Fig. 10) is fixed to a machine frame (mounted on frame 47, see Fig. 10, para [0180]) to on which a conveying device for workpieces is arranged to supply workpieces into the working space and to rotate the workpiece (27) in the working space about an axis of rotation oriented transversely to the printing direction (Fig. 10, para [0028] [0043], [0054]-[0061], [0175], turntable 41 to rotate the workpieces/container in the working space about the longitudinal axis, meeting the claimed limitations).
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 YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782