DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant's arguments dated 01/21/2026. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending in the application. Claim(s) 1,8, and 11 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 13 and 14 has/have been added.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. In re Tanaka et aI., 193 USPQ 139, (CCPA) 1977.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-10, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080117248 to Uptergrove (hereinafter “Uptergrove”).
With respect to claim 1, Uptergrove discloses An installation for decorating a plurality of hollow objects of glass, metal or plastic material (ink droplet application system 40 FIG. 3), comprising: -, - a conveyor suitable for moving the objects successively along a trajectory with respect to the frame (conveyed [0017] [0020]), - at least one printing station configured to digitally print at least a portion of a superficial image on a surface of each of the objects (printing subsystem 50 print heads 60 FIG. 3), wherein the conveyor is further suitable for moving each of the objects successively past the printing station during the digital printing (print heads 60 [0017] [0020] FIG. 3).
However, Uptergrove fails to specifically disclose the term:
a frame.
Uptergrove discloses:
a frame (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 Additionally, more frame pieces would have obviously been used. Fames were common practice at the time of the invention and often necessary for proper function.).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the frame as disclosed by Uptergrove. The motivation for doing so would have been to properly support the conveyor and printheads. ([0017]-[0020] FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 of Uptergrove).
With respect to claim 2, Uptergrove discloses comprising a plurality of printing stations suitable for performing digital printings of portions of decoration on each of the objects, the conveyor being suitable for moving the objects past each of the printing stations during the digital printings (print heads 60 FIG. 3 [0017], [0020]).
With respect to claim 3, Uptergrove discloses at least one presence detector suitable for detecting the objects, the conveyor being suitable for moving the objects successively past the presence detector before moving the objects past the printing station, the presence detector being suitable for generating a detection signal, and - a control system suitable for receiving the detection signal and for sending a synchronization signal to the printing station (device 80 FIG. 3).
With respect to claim 4, Uptergrove discloses comprising at least one pre-treatment station suitable for carrying out a pre-treatment of the objects, the conveyor being further suitable for moving the objects successively past the pre-treatment station before moving the objects past the printing station ([0025] of uptergrove Additionally, 60 FIG. 6A of Jennel discloses pre-treatment).
With respect to claim 5, Uptergrove discloses comprising at least one post-treatment station suitable for carrying out a final or intermediate curing of each of the objects, the conveyor being further suitable for successively moving the objects past the post-treatment station (100 FIG. 3 [0025]-[0029]).
With respect to claim 6, Uptergrove discloses wherein the conveyor is configured to move each of the objects in rectilinear and uniform translation with respect to the frame, at least during the digital printing (FIG. 3 - FIG. 5).
With respect to claim 7, Uptergrove discloses wherein the conveyor is configured so that each of the objects is at a distance from the printing station during the digital printing, the distance being comprised between 0.1 and 3.0 mm (standoff distance 1mm [0023]).
With respect to claim 8, Uptergrove discloses wherein the distance is comprised between 0.5 and 1.5 mm (standoff distance 1mm [0023]).
With respect to claim 9, Uptergrove discloses wherein the printing station comprises a print head having one or a plurality of rows of nozzles having ejection ports located in a vertical plane, the row or rows being vertical (print heads 60 FIG. 3 - FIG. 5).
With respect to claim 10, Uptergrove discloses wherein the objects are perfume bottles or packaging (container 10).
With respect to claim 13, Uptergrove discloses wherein the printing station is configured to deposit droplets of from 7-21 pl of ink on the surface of the objects (droplets 30 [0016]).
With respect to claim 14, Uptergrove discloses wherein the printing station is configured to print ink on the surface of the objects at 600-1200 dots per inch (DPI) (droplets 30 [0016]).
2. Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20080117248 to Uptergrove (hereinafter “Uptergrove”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220072876 to Barrett (hereinafter “Barrett”).
With respect to claim 11, Uptergrove discloses A method for decorating a plurality of hollow glass objects comprising: - obtaining an installation according to claim 1 (glass and glassware, [0003] and [0068], also, see claim 1), - moving the objects, by the conveyor, with respect to the frame, successively along the trajectory, and - digital printing, by the printing station, on each of the objects in order to obtain at least a portion of decoration on each of the objects, the conveyor successively moving each of the objects past the printing station during the digital printing (print heads 60 [0017] [0020] FIG. 3).
However, Uptergrove fails to specifically disclose:
glass.
Barrett discloses:
glass(glass and glassware).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glass as disclosed by Barrett with the method/apparatus of Uptergrove. The motivation for doing so would have been to print on multiple types of containers. ([0003] and [0068] of Barrett).
With respect to claim 12, Uptergrove in view of Barrett discloses wherein the hollow glass objects are perfume bottles (glass and glassware, [0003] and [0068] of Barrett).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
1. Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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).
The prior art made of record, whether or not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6135654 to Jennel discloses pre-treatment.
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 extension fee 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 Bradley W Thies whose telephone number is (571)270-5667. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 am -6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY W THIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853