DETAILED ACTION
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, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (2007/0253757) in view of Caton et al. (2005/0046874).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14, Krueger teaches an inkjet printer and method comprising:
a primer applicator (fig. 1, item 40) configured to apply primer to media as the media passes the primer applicator ([0073]), and
a controller ([0091]-[0092]) operatively connected to the primer applicator, the controller being configured to:
identify a range of primer thicknesses for the media to which the primer is being applied ([0091]-[0092], note that each medium thickness has a corresponding range for an amount of fixing fluid per unit area, which itself necessarily corresponds to a thickness);
identify a thickness of the primer on the media ([0091]-[0092]);
adjust operation of the primer applicator in response to the identified thickness being out of the identified range of primer thicknesses ([0091]-[0092], Note that the primer thickness is adjusted according to the medium thickness detected by the controller).
Tanaka does not teach a sensor configured to generate electrical signals corresponding to a thickness of the primer applied to the media; and wherein the controller compares the identified thickness to the identified range of primer thicknesses. Caton teaches using sensors to detect a thickness of a primer layer (Caton, [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the primer thickness detection sensor disclosed by Caton to the device disclosed by Tanaka because doing so would allow for real-time adjustment and precise determination of primer thickness, thereby ensuring high print quality.
Upon combination of Caton with Tanaka, the resultant device would use the eddy current sensor disclosed by Caton to obtain primer thickness and then compare the thickness with the viable ranges for whatever the current medium thickness and adjust the thickness of the primer layer if the thickness fell outside of the viable range.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Tanaka in view of Caton teaches the inkjet printer and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the primer applicator is a roller (Tanaka, [0073]).
Claim(s) 3-10, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (2024/0406317).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton teaches the inkjet printer of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton does not teach wherein the primer applicator is a printhead having a plurality of ejectors configured to eject drops of primer onto the media. Tanaka ‘317 teaches this (Tanaka ‘317, [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a printhead as a primer applicator instead of a roller because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known primer applicator for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 4, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton and Tanaka ‘317 teaches the inkjet printer of claim 3 wherein the sensor is a eddy current sensor (Caton, [0031]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton and Tanaka ‘317 teaches the inkjet printer and method of claims 4 and 14, respectively, the controller being further configured to: identify a first end of the range of primer thicknesses as a thickness that is too thin to enable deinking of the media; and identify a second end of the range of primer thicknesses as a thickness that is too thick for sufficient ink drying within an image dryer in the inkjet printer to fix an ink image to the media (Tanaka ‘757, [0091]-[0092], Note that, for every medium thickness, a range of viable primer amounts per unit area/thicknesses is identified, and any amount outside of that range is too thick or too thin).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton and Tanaka ‘317 teaches the inkjet printer and method of claims 5 and 15, respectively, the controller being further configured to: adjust operation of the primer applicator by altering a firing signal parameter for the primer applicator (Tanaka ‘317, Note that this is how a printhead works).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton and Tanaka ‘317 teaches the inkjet printer of claims 6 and 16, respectively, wherein the firing signal parameter is a firing signal magnitude (Tanaka ‘317, Note that this is how a printhead works. Note that “firing signal magnitude” has not been defined with any specificity).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton and Tanaka ‘317 teaches the inkjet printer and method of claims 7 and 17, respectively, further comprising: a plurality of eddy current sensors arranged in a cross-process direction of a path for the media through the inkjet printer; and the controller being further configured to:
operate the primer applicator using a test pattern to eject drops of primer on the media passing the primer applicator; generate a map of positions of primer drops on the media; compare the positions of the primer drops on the media to the test pattern used to operate the primer applicator; and identify an ejector in the primer applicator as inoperative in response to a position in the test pattern not having a corresponding position for a primer drop in the generated map (Tanaka ‘317, fig. 6. Note two sensors on scanner 106 for reading primer test chart 1202, and the test chart compares the actual chart to a target chart to ascertain misfired and absent droplets. Note that positions of target drops and actual drops are mapped). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the primer thickness determination and adjustment technique disclosed by Tanaka ‘757 with a primer test chart printing technique, as disclosed by Tanaka ‘317, because doing so would result in even more precise evaluation of primer deposition, thereby ensuring better print quality.
Regarding claims 9, 19 and 20, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton and Tanaka ‘317 teaches the inkjet printer and method of claims 8 and 18, respectively, wherein the eddy current sensors are separated in the cross-process direction by one-half a field of view of the eddy current sensors (Tanaka ‘317, fig. 6, Note sensors arranged in the cross-process direction. Note that, upon substitution of Caton’s eddy current sensors for the optical sensors of Tanaka’317, the limitation would be met).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka ‘757 in view of Caton and Tanaka ‘317 teaches the inkjet printer of claim 9 wherein the test pattern is a plurality of dashes (Tanaka ‘317, see fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art combination does not teach “identifying a range of primer thicknesses for the print media to which the primer is being applied.” Examiner maintains Tanaka teaches this. Tanaka teaches identifying a mass-per-area amount of fixing fluid, i.e., primer, to be applied to print media with different thicknesses. This mass-per-area amount corresponds directly to a thickness of a layer to be deposited. Here, the identified ranges have high and low values that are the same and include the specified thicknesses of primer to be applied to the media.
Applicant argues no “ranges” are identified, but Examiner maintains a range may have the same value for its upper and lower bounds. Further, even if the amount of fluid per unit area is not the same as a thickness, Caton expressly identifying thickness, and thus, given the fact that the mass per unit area of fluid and the thickness of a layer of fluid were readily derivable from one another, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use one or both quantities to evaluate the amount of primer applied.
As detailed above, the Caton reference has been incorporated as a test determination to ensure that Tanaka’s application of primer was accurate. That is, once the identified mass-per-unit area amount of primer was applied by Tanaka’s device, a sensor of the type disclosed by Caton would be used to determine the actual thickness of the amount of primer applied to ensure that the amount of primer applied was that identified by Tanaka as corresponding to the specific print media. If the amount of primer applied was that of the identified range of Tanaka, nothing would happen. If the amount of primer applied by Tanaka was not that of the identified range, the amount of primer applied by Tanaka would be adjusted to bring the amount of primer to the identified range. In other words, upon determination of actual thickness by a sensor of the type disclosed by Caton, Tanaka’s device would “adjust operation of the primer applicator in response to the identified thickness being out of the identified range of primer thicknesses.”
Applicant argues there would be no rational to combine the prior art references as above. Examiner maintains that the combination is proper. As with any number of printing operations, fluids are often applied in incorrect amounts or positions on substrates, and the printers in which these fluids are applied require calibration of their applicators to ensure proper application of those fluids. Examiner maintains that adding a sensor and determination function of the type disclosed by Caton to Tanaka’s printer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so would allow for adjustment of the amount of primer applied when the amount fell outside of acceptable volumes.
Further, note that while Applicant describes Caton as applying strictly to paint layers, Caton does indeed teach determining primer layers (Caton, [0025]).
The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
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, 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