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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 8, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32, 33, 35, 37, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukasaku et al. (JP 2005254631 A), hereinafter “Fukasaku.” All paragraph numbers refer to the previously provided machine translation.
Regarding claim 32, Fukasaku teaches a modular production system for processing or finishing a print substrate, the modular production system comprising: modular units, wherein: the modular units include a modular fragrance unit; the modular fragrance unit is configured to apply a fragrance to the print substrate; the modular fragrance unit includes a tank device for storing the fragrance (fig. 1, carriage 123, head 124, aroma cartridge 125, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0034]); the modular fragrance unit is a rewetting unit for the print substrate (see paragraph [0030]); and the modular fragrance unit includes a cleaning device (fig. 1, recovery device 147, capping means, cleaning means, paragraph [0028]).
It is noted that the recitation of “the modular fragrance unit is a rewetting unit for the print substrate” amounts to functional language describing the intended use of the apparatus of the claim. From the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2114:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."… A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
The apparatus of Fukasaku teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, and therefore would be capable of the intended use recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 33, Fukasaku teaches the modular production system of claim 32, wherein the modular fragrance unit is a separate modular unit (fig. 1, carriage 123, head 124, aroma cartridge 125, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 35, Fukasaku teaches the modular production system of claim 32, wherein the tank device includes a magazine of tank containers (fig. 1, carriage 123, head 124, aroma cartridge 125, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 37, Fukasaku teaches the modular production system of claim 32, wherein: the modular fragrance unit includes an applicator; and the cleaning device is configured to clean the applicator (fig. 1, carriage 123, head 124, aroma cartridge 125, recovery device 147, capping means, cleaning means, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 41, Fukasaku teaches a modular fragrance unit for processing or finishing a print substrate, the modular fragrance unit comprising: a tank device for storing a fragrance; and a cleaning device, wherein: the modular fragrance unit is configured to apply the fragrance to the print substrate; and the modular fragrance unit is a rewetting unit for the print substrate (fig. 1, carriage 123, head 124, aroma cartridge 125, recovery device 147, capping means, cleaning means, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 43, Fukasaku teaches the modular fragrance unit of claim 41, further comprising: an applicator, wherein the cleaning device is configured to clean the applicator (fig. 1, carriage 123, head 124, aroma cartridge 125, recovery device 147, capping means, cleaning means, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0034]).
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.
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.
Claims 32-34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 2007/0240593 A1), hereinafter “Schneider,” in view of Fukasaku (JP 2005254631 A). All paragraph numbers referring to Fukasaku are drawn from the previously attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 32, Schneider teaches a modular production system for processing or finishing a print substrate, the modular production system comprising: modular units, wherein: the modular units include a modular fragrance unit; the modular fragrance unit is configured to apply a fragrance to the print substrate; the modular fragrance unit is a rewetting unit for the print substrate (fig. 1, printing unit 10, substrate 11, printing devices 12-13, paragraphs [0015]-[0019]). It is noted that Schneider does not explicitly teach that the application of the fragrance acts as “rewetting,” however the Examiner argues that applying the fragrance after printing on the substrate as disclosed in paragraphs [0019] for example will inherently rewet the printed substrate.
However, Schneider fails to teach or fairly suggest the modular fragrance unit includes a tank device for storing the fragrance; and the modular fragrance unit includes a cleaning device.
Fukasaku teaches a modular fragrance unit includes a tank device for storing the fragrance; and the modular fragrance unit includes a cleaning device (fig. 1, carriage 123, head 124, aroma cartridge 125, recovery device 147, capping means, cleaning means, paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0030]-[0031], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modular fragrance unit of Fukasaku into the modular production system of Schneider in order to provide a fragrance-applying device capable of cleaning itself, thus improving the operability of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 33, Schneider further teaches the modular fragrance unit is a separate modular unit (fig. 1, printing unit 10, substrate 11, printing devices 12-13, paragraphs [0015]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 34, Schneider further teaches the modular units include a modular printing unit for printing the print substrate; and the modular fragrance unit is downstream of the modular printing unit (fig. 1, printing unit 10, substrate 11, printing devices 12-13, paragraphs [0015]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 38, Schneider as modified by Fukasaku teaches the modular production system of claim 34, and Schneider further teaches a method for processing or finishing a print substrate comprising: printing the print substrate using the modular printing unit; and applying the fragrance to the print substrate using the modular fragrance unit (fig. 1, printing unit 10, substrate 11, printing devices 12-13, paragraphs [0019]).
Claims 36 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukasaku in view of Wagner (EP 1839874 B1). All paragraph numbers refer to the newly attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 36, Fukasaku teaches the modular production system of claim 32, but fails to teach or fairly suggest the cleaning device is configured to pump out or rinse or fill the tank device.
However, Wagner teaches a cleaning device configured to pump out or rinse of fill a tank device (fig. 1, holder 18, applicator 50, see paragraphs [0011]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cleaning device of Wagner into the modular production system of Fukasaku in order to improve the recycling of the tank device.
Regarding claim 42, Fukasaku teaches the modular fragrance unit of claim 41 as detailed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above, but fails to teach or fairly suggest the cleaning device is configured to pump out or rinse or fill the tank device.
However, Wagner teaches a cleaning device configured to pump out or rinse of fill a tank device (fig. 1, holder 18, applicator 50, see paragraphs [0011]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cleaning device of Wagner into the modular production system of Fukasaku in order to improve the recycling of the tank device.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider as modified by Fukasaku as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Machielse et al. (WO 01/83218 A1), hereinafter “Machielse.”
Schneider as modified by Fukasaku teaches the method of claim 38, but fails to teach or fairly suggest the method further comprising mixing the fragrance into an ink; and printing the ink on the print substrate.
Machielse teaches a method comprising mixing a fragrance into an ink; and printing the ink on a print substrate (figs. 1-2, cartridges 5, fragrance/ink cartridge G, see page 1, line 24 to page 2, line 18, and page 4, lines 10-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Machielse into the method of Schneider as modified by Fukasaku in order to improve the speed of operation of the modular production system by providing the apparatus with the ability to print images and fragrances simultaneously.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider as modified by Fukasaku and Machielse as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (JP 2018012219 A) hereinafter “Sato.” All paragraph numbers refer to the newly attached machine translation.
Schneider as modified by Fukasaku and Machielse teaches the method of claim 39, but fails to teach or fairly suggest the ink being odor-free.
Sato teaches an odorless inkjet ink usable in inkjet printing devices (paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ink of Sato into the method of Schneider as modified by Fukasaku and Machielse in order to reduce the presence of undesired odors of the ink.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Namai, Fukasaku, DeMoore, and Watson fail to teach “rewetting” the print substrate due to not including a drying step between sequential printing pages. However, as argued in the rejections under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) above, the “rewetting unit” as claimed in claim 32 amounts to functional language such that the prior art must teach structure capable of producing “rewetting.” Fukasaku, in particular, teaches structure capable of printing fragrance on a previously printed image wherein the image may be previously dried, thus rewetting the substrate.
Further, Applicant argues that Fukasaku fails to teach a cleaning device, instead teaching a recovery device intended to handle defective ejections from the printhead. However, the Examiner maintains that the recovery device of Fukasaku, by clearing defective nozzles of debris or dried ink for example, embodies a cleaning device and thus reads on the language of the claims.
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 THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM EST.
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 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853