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 .
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.
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) 1-13, 15, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baptista (US 2012/0111215) in view of Chmielnik (US 4774885). Regarding claim 1, Baptista teaches “a method for applying an image built up of multiple ink layers on a container (paragraph 16), the method comprising: building up the image by sequential deposition of layers of UV curable process colour inks (abstract, Figure 3), wet-trapping ink of subsequently deposited UV curable process colour ink layers on previously deposited UV curable process colour ink layers (paragraphs 103-106), transferring the image to the container (claim 1b), UV curing the UV curable process colour inks of the image on the container (claim 1c), wherein the deposition of the layers of UV curable process colour inks includes for each layer the steps of: applying UV curable ink of a process colour to ink wells in a mantle surface of an anilox roll by rotating the mantle surface along a wetting window of a doctor chamber containing the UV curable process colour ink (Scheme 1 of Figure 3, paragraph 47), transferring UV curable process colour ink from the ink wells in the mantle surface of the anilox roll to a flexographic printing plate carried on a mantle surface of a plate cylinder by contact between the mantle surface of the anilox roll and the printing plate (scheme 1, paragraph 47), wherein the UV curable process colour inks are provided as primary colours of a CMYK colour system (table on page 5), the UV curable process colour inks having a different viscosity; and the UV curable process colour inks are applied in an order of decreasing viscosity (paragraph 106).” Baptista fails to the use of an offset blanket between the printing plate and the surface to be printed. Chmielnik teaches using an offset blanket in a relief printing process (column 2, lines 28-30) in order to improve on the known process of printing directly to the substrate from the relief plate (column 4, lines 5-10) in order to provide a reproduction of a photograph on a preformed container (column 1, lines 7-12). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of an offset blanket into the method of Baptista in order to provide a reproduction of a photograph on a preformed container. Regarding claim 2, Baptista further teaches “wherein the UV curable process colour inks have a different viscosity while being transferred from their respective anilox roll to their respective printing plate, as well as after being deposited on the blanket and prior to being transferred to the container (paragraphs 103-107).” Regarding claim 3, Baptista, as modified, teaches all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the UV curable process colour ink are standard colours according to the Pantone Matching System.” However, using an ink which conforms to a standard is, clearly, desirable. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use colors which are standard colors of the Pantone Matching system in the modified method of AAPA in order to have colors which fit a standard in the industry. Regarding claim 4, Baptista further teaches “wherein the viscosity of the UV curable ink in the process colours are included in the range 1-4 Pa•s at 20° for strain rates between approximately 6 and 130 s-1 (claim 2: Examiner interprets 4 Pa•s to be ‘about 50 Poises).” Regarding claim 5, Baptista further teaches “wherein the UV curable process colour inks are provided as primary colours of an CMYK colour system or an extended gamut CMYK colour system (CMYKOGV or CMYKOGB) (paragraph 105, table on page 5), the UV curable process colour inks having different viscosities (table on page 5).” Chmielnik further teaches “and wherein the colour black (K) is applied to the blanket first, and the colour Yellow (Y) is applied to the blanket last, and/or the UV curable process colour inks are applied to the blanket in a sequence of dark to light, in stepwise decreasing viscosity (column 2, lines 55-60).” Examiner notes that since Chmielnik teaches the order of black, blue, red, and then yellow, and since Baptista teaches that the inks should decrease in viscosity (paragraph 104), one having ordinary skill in the art would make the black ink have the highest viscosity and the yellow ink have the lowest viscosity. Regarding claim 6, Baptista further teaches “in which the UV curable process colour ink is applied to the mantle surface of the anilox roll at about ambient pressure plus any height of the ink column in the doctor chamber (it is convention that when no special conditions are specified, standard temperature and pressure are assumed. Therefore, ambient pressure is presumed in Baptista).” Regarding claim 7, Baptista further teaches “wherein the UV curable process colour ink in the doctor chamber contacting the mantle surface of the anilox roll is bounded by seals that include a concave sealing plane, each sealing plane cooperating with a smooth circumferential surface ring portion of the mantle surface of the anilox roll that bounds a mantle portion having ink wells (Figure 3, scheme 1, paragraph 47).” Regarding claim 8, Baptista further teaches “wherein the seals are impregnated with a barrier material for the UV curable process colour ink (paragraph 47).” Regarding claim 9, Baptista further teaches “wherein the UV curable process colour ink in the doctor chamber contacting the mantle surface of the anilox roll is further bounded by doctor blades extending tangentially towards the mantle surface of the anilox roll, each blade contacting the mantle surface of the anilox roll with a longitudinal edge portion that axially extend along the mantle surface of the anilox roll between the seals (see scheme 1).”
Regarding claim 10, Baptista further teaches “wherein the seals comprise support planes adjacent the concave that extend towards the sealing plane, in which the side edges of the doctor blades are embedded (see the orientation of the blade in scheme 1 of Figure 3, paragraph 48).”
Regarding claim 11, Baptista further teaches “wherein the seals and the doctor blade define an outer frame portion of the wetting window of the doctor chamber (see scheme 1).” Regarding claim 12, Baptista further teaches “wherein a contact angle between the mantle surface of the anilox roll and the doctor blades is between 37 and 45 degrees (see the angle in scheme 1).” Examiner notes that even if the figures cannot be said to be drawn to scale, it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. In this instance, since the general angle of the blade is disclosed in scheme 1 of Figure 3, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the angle between the mantle surface of the anilox roll and the doctor blades to between 37 and 45 degrees in order to determine the optimal or workable range of angles. Regarding claim 13, carrying out the modified method of Baptista, as in claim 5 above, results in the set of inks as claimed. Examiner notes that since Chmielnik teaches the order of black, blue, red, and then yellow, and since Baptista teaches that the inks should decrease in viscosity (paragraph 104), one having ordinary skill in the art would make the black ink have the highest viscosity and the yellow ink have the lowest viscosity. Regarding claim 15, Baptista further teaches “wherein the inks have a viscosity included in a range extending from 1-4 Pa•s at 20° for strain rates between approximately 6 and 130 s-1 (claim 2: Examiner interprets 4 Pa•s to be ‘about 50 Poises).” Regarding claim 21, carrying out the method of Baptista, as modified in claim 1 above, results in the flexographic transfer printing system as claimed. Specifically, Baptista discloses “a flexographic transfer printing system (Figures 3), comprising: a set of colour heads (scheme 1 in Figure 3, paragraph 104), each comprising: an ink reservoir (item 1.1) and a doctor chamber (item d); an anilox roll (item 1.3); a plate cylinder (item 1.4); wherein the printing units are sorted based on the viscosity of the ink in their colour heads, from high viscosity to low viscosity in a direction of rotation of the” surface to be printed (paragraphs 103-107). Chmielnik discloses an “offset cylinder with a blanket for receiving layers of ink thereon (item 14).” Regarding claim 22, Baptista discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 21 above, including “wherein: the ink reservoir of the colour heads respectively comprises cyan ink; magenta ink; yellow ink; and black ink (see the table on page 5), wherein the inks have a different viscosity in substantially non-overlapping viscosity ranges (see the table on page 5).” Baptista fails to disclose “wherein the viscosity of the black ink is higher than the viscosity of the yellow ink, the viscosities decrease in the order black, cyan, magenta, yellow or black, magenta, cyan, yellow.” However, the broader disclosure of Baptista does not particularly limit which colors are applied in what order, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. Chmielnik further teaches applying the inks to the blanket in the order of black, blue, red, then yellow (column 2, lines 55-60). Examiner notes that since Chmielnik teaches the order of black, blue, red, and then yellow, and since Baptista teaches that the inks should decrease in viscosity (paragraph 104), one having ordinary skill in the art would make the black ink have the highest viscosity and the yellow ink have the lowest viscosity. Regarding claim 23, no structure is recited which defines over the modified printing system of Baptista. The modified printing system of Baptista is more than capable of printing with inks that have the recited properties.
Claim(s) 14 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Baptista and Chmielnik, further in view of Liefferink (US 2018/0139353). Regarding claim 14, Baptista, as modified, teaches all that is claimed, as in claim 13 above, except “further comprising: at least one of blue ink and violet ink; orange ink; and green ink; wherein the inks have a different viscosity, in substantially non-overlapping viscosity ranges, and wherein the viscosities decrease in the order black, green, blue/violet, cyan, magenta, orange, yellow or black, green, blue/violet, magenta, cyan, orange, yellow.” However, Liefferink teaches using CMYKOGV in order to increase the color gamut in a printing process and/or to achieve printing in full color (paragraph 5). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use CMYKOGV in order to enhance the color gamut and/or to achieve a printing in full color. Similarly, as in claim 5 above, the inks would be applied from darkest to lightest, with the darkest having the highest viscosity, which would be black, green, violet, cyan, magenta, orange, and then yellow. Regarding claim 25, Baptista further teaches “wherein the inks have a viscosity included in a range extending from 1-4 Pa•s at 20° for strain rates between approximately 6 and 130 s-1 (claim 2: Examiner interprets 4 Pa•s to be ‘about 50 Poises).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's
In response to applicant's argument that Baptista and Chmielnik are not combinable, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this instance, Chmielnik teaches using an offset blanket in a relief printing process (column 2, lines 28-30) in order to improve on the known process of printing directly to the substrate from the relief plate (column 4, lines 5-10) in order to provide a reproduction of a photograph on a preformed container (column 1, lines 7-12). Thus, what is reasonably conveyed to one having ordinary skill in the art is to change the direct printing process of Baptista into an indirect one, that is, an offset one, in order to print a reproduction of a photograph on a preformed container. How one having ordinary skill in the art would go about physically changing the direct printing to indirect is clearly within the skill of the ordinary artisan, as Chmielnik clearly understands that his invention alters the known direct printing onto a paper web into an offset one (column 4, lines 5-10).
Examiner further notes that the limitation that the printing be directly onto the container surface is clearly met by the stated modification in accordance with Chmielnik: transferring a reproduction of a photography from an offset blanket cylinder to the recipient surface, which is a preformed container. See column 2, lines 7-12 of Chmielnik.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 amount to 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). In this instance, it is the teachings of Chmielnik which are used to modify Baptista. Regardless of whether the process is direct or indirect, the core principle of Baptista is having decreasing viscosities in order to wet trap (paragraphs 106-107). One having ordinary skill in the art would still use this principle when changing to an offset process. Thus, whichever order in which the inks are applied, the first ink must be the most viscous ink, with subsequent ink layers being less viscous than the one before it, until all the inks are applied. Since the order of the inks are changed because of changing to an offset process, one having ordinary skill in the art would also it would be necessary to change the viscosities of the inks such that the core principle of Baptista is followed. Therefore, Baptista cannot be said to teach away from the combination when, in fact, it is the teachings of Baptista which give the inspiration to change the viscosities.
Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion in Chmielnik to modify the order taught in Baptista is clearly incorrect. As is known in the art, and through common sense, because the offset process involves an offset cylinder, the order of applying ink to the offset cylinder is reversed. Regardless, Chmielnik blatantly teaches reversing the order of ink application (column 2, lines 55-62).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, claim 2 of Baptista discloses “about 50 poises”, which is about 5 Pa•s, and 4 is interpreted to be “about 5”.
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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights