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 Praharaj et al. (10,999,449).
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]). Guo does not teach printing a grid marking.
Praharaj teaches B) printing at least one grid marking (Praharaj, fig. 3, item 302, fig. 7, step 704) and at least one decorative pattern onto the primer-coated base paper, thereby obtaining a printed base paper (Praharaj, col. 4, lines 8-16, note that the printing of the grid occurs in between printing of decorative images, and thus any consecutive grid and decorative image can be said to be printed together),
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 (Praharaj, fig. 7, step 706),
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 (Praharaj, fig. 7, step 708, note that blur is calculated by comparing the actual blur state to the digitally-stored unblurred image),
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 (Praharaj, col. 7, lines 28-41).
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 Praharaj to the device disclosed by Guo because doing so would allow for correction of image distortions due to blurring of fluids on the medium.
Upon combination of Praharaj with Guo, the resultant device would dry the grid disclosed by Praharaj 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.
wherein the predetermined criterion is met when a difference between the detected grid spacing and the target state is below a predetermined limit value and wherein the predetermined criterion is met when a ratio of the detected grid spacing and the target state lies within a predetermined range (Praharaj, col. 7, lines 28-41, Note that, when blur is high, the spacing between grid lines shrinks. That is, the blur amount is corrected to bring the grid spacing into a target range. Note that, when blur is high, the spacing between grid lines shrinks. Note that the claim does not recite that a ratio is calculated – only that a ratio exists).
Regarding claim 3, Guo in view of Praharaj 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 (Praharaj, col. 7, lines 28-41, Note that airflow, i.e., drying, can be reduced).
Regarding claim 8, Guo in view of Praharaj 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 (Praharaj, fig. 3, Note that this language could mean any number of things).
Regarding claim 9, Guo in view of Praharaj 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 (Praharaj, col. 7, lines 28-41, Note that the entire printing technique is executed “depending on location”).
Regarding claim 10, Guo in view of Praharaj teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the grid marking features grid points arranged along multiple lines (Praharaj, see fig. 3)
Regarding claim 11, Guo in view of Praharaj teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the grid marking is a frequency-modulated grid marking (Praharaj, col. 7, lines 28-41, Note that all printing data is frequency modulated).
Regarding claims 14-18, Guo in view of Praharaj teaches the limitations (Praharaj, col. 7, lines 28-41, see fig. 3).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Praharaj as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (2020/0412908).
Regarding claim 12, Guo in view of Praharaj teaches the method according to claim 1. 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 Praharaj 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 Praharaj, 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) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Praharaj as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoda (2019/0001709).
Regarding claims 19-22, Guo in view of Praharaj 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 Praharaj 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 filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the system, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims.
The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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