DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are 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 claims now recite wherein drying is performed to change the grid spacing. While Examiner assumes this to mean that drying is executed at a different temperature or a different timing so that ink the print medium absorbs more or less of the primer or the ink, it is not clear from the claims what exactly is intended. Moreover, while the general idea may be conveyed, to say that the dryer itself changes the grid spacing seems imprecise as the controller would seem to dictate grid spacing.
Applicant traverses the rejection pointing to paragraph [0025] of the present specification. That passage explains that the dryer reduces moisture content, which in turn reduces the wet expansion of the paper. None of this is reflected in the claims. Thus, while the specification may state that “the paper is dried by means of the at least one dryer to change the grid spacing,” this is not an enablement rejection but rather an indefiniteness rejection, and it is maintained that without further specification, a dryer itself does not change grid spacing.
Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claims 1 and 2, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, -11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (2022/0396710) in view of Loffler (5,500,801) and Loffler (5,602,746).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 13, Guo teaches a method and digital printing facility for printing a decorative pattern onto a surface of a paper by means-of a digital printing facility that comprises:
at least one printing unit (fig. 3, item 24) for printing the decorative pattern onto the applied primer (fig. 3, note that primer applicator 22 applies primer before application of ink), and
at least one dryer (fig. 3, item 28) for drying at least one part of the paper after the primer and/or decorative pattern has been applied (see fig.3), the method comprising the following steps:
A) providing a base paper coated with a primer (see fig. 3, note that the coated paper is provided to the printhead 24)
E2) drying the primer and/or ink with the dryer according to print characteristics ([0142]), wherein the drying is performed by the dryer to reduce a moisture content of the paper. Guo does not teach printing a grid marking.
Loffler teaches B) printing at least one grid marking (Loffler, see fig. 3a, note that the four crosses constitute a grid) and at least one decorative pattern onto the base paper, thereby obtaining a printed base paper (Loffler, see fig. 3a, that the registration calibration is done in between print jobs),
C) detecting a grid spacing between at least two points of the grid marking of the printed base paper to determine an actual state of the printed base paper (Loffler, fig. 5A, step 1),
D) comparing the detected grid spacing of the grid marking of the printed base paper according to the actual state with a grid spacing digitally stored as a target state for the printed decorative pattern (Loffler, fig. 5, note that target values are necessarily known and compared with the read-in values),
El) amending the stored target grid spacing on the basis of the comparison by creating an amended target grid spacing and a decorative pattern amended therewith and/or
E2) amending at least one process parameter for controlling the application of the primer and/or the printing of the grid marking and/or the drying until a predetermined criterion is met (Loffler, col. 2, lines 40-55, Note that the adjusting devices control deviations in registration in the printing press. Also note, however, that shrunken sheets are contemplated at col. 1, lines 46-53, and for purposes of examination, Loffler is being taken to be directed to correcting grid spacing/registration errors due to shrinkage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the control method disclosed by Loffler to the device disclosed by Guo because doing so would allow for correction of image distortions due to shrinkage of the print medium.
Upon combination of Loffler with Guo, the resultant device would dry the grid disclosed by Loffler with the dryer disclosed by Guo to change the grid spacing. Note that Guo’s dryer can dry in any number of ways, and thus any given grid spacing would differ from any other grid spacing depending on printing conditions and dryer settings.
Guo in view of Loffler does not teach wherein an electric control unit is configured to control the at least one dryer and which accesses data stored in the electronic memory, from which the electric control unit determined how much the paper must be dried by the at least one dryer in order to cause a certain dimensional change in the paper. Loffler ‘746 teaches this (Loffler ‘746, see fig. 4, col. 5, lines 24-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the memory and technique of corresponding temperatures and shrinkage amounts disclosed by Loffler ‘746 to the device disclosed by Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 because doing so would allow for precise correction of a multitude of dimensional change amounts with prestored drying amounts.
Upon combination of references, the memory added by Loffler ‘746 would contain corresponding shrinkage in grid spacing disclosed by Loffler ‘801.
Regarding claim 3, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein when executing E2) the at least one process parameter of the digital printing facility is a process parameter of the primer application unit and/or the dryer (Note that, upon combination of the references, the primer application of Guo would be controlled by the grid spacing control technique disclosed by the secondary references).
Regarding claim 8, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 teaches the method according to ere- claim 1, wherein multiple grid spacings of the printed base paper are detected and compared with multiple target states, the detected grid spacings and/or the target states extending in at least two linearly independent directions (Loffler ‘801, figs. 3, 4, Note that this language could mean any number of things).
Regarding claim 9, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 teaches the method according to claim 8, that wherein the grid spacing of the printed base paper and/or the target state is amended depending on location (Note that the entire printing technique is executed “depending on location”).
Regarding claim 10, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the grid marking features grid points arranged along multiple lines (Loffler ‘801, see figs. 3, 4)
Regarding claim 11, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the grid marking is a frequency-modulated grid marking (Loffler ‘801, figs. 3, 4, Note that all printing data is frequency modulated).
Regarding claims 14-18, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 teaches the limitations (Loffler ‘801, see figs. 3, 4).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (2020/0412908).
Regarding claim 12, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 teaches the method according to claim 1. Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 does not teach a latent image. Kobayashi teaches embedding a latent, invisible scannable image within a decorative image (Kobayashi, see fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the latent scannable image embedding technique disclosed by Kobayashi to the grid and decorative images disclosed by Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 because doing so would allow for overlapping of the spaces required for the grid and the decorative image, thereby reducing total media required for the method and eliminating waste. Upon applying Kobayashi’s technique to Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746, the resultant image would have overlapping decorative and grid images.
(Examiner understands that Kobayashi’s latent image is a barcode. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains it would have been obvious to embed any scannable image not meant to be decorative within any decorative image because doing so would conserve print media).
Claim(s) 19-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoda (2019/0001709).
Regarding claims 19-22, Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 does not teach not adjusting the process parameter if blurring, i.e., grid spacing, is already within a target range, and if the blurring is not within the target range repeating steps of adjusting the process parameter, printing a grid, comparing the grid to a target value grid, determining if the most recently printed grid falls within an acceptable range, and so on until the printed grid falls within the acceptable range. Yoda teaches printing a check pattern, drying the check pattern, evaluating the dried check pattern to see if it is acceptable, if it is acceptable proceeding to regular printing, and if it is not acceptable, adjusting a drying level of the check pattern, printing another check pattern and so on to arrive at a dryer level for an acceptable printed product (Yoda, [0069]). It would have been obvious to apply the check pattern evaluation repeating technique disclosed by Yoda in the method disclosed by Guo in view of Loffler ‘801 and Loffler ‘746 because doing so would amount to applying a known repeating technique to a known method to obtain predictable results. In other words, applying the technique would facilitate an iterative determination method for arriving at the exact desired grid spacing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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
