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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of DE Application No. 102023108931.5 was received on 10 June 2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 April 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03 April 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: Claim 1 recites a method of determining a pixel offset for a pixel of a printing original for a printed image based on a target diameter of the irregular container to be printed on; and then based on the determined pixel offset, generating a corrected printing original. However, the claim is silent as to how a pixel offset is determined, what criteria is used to determine the pixel offset, and when the pixel offset is determined. One of ordinary skill in the art is unable to make and use the invention based on “determining a pixel offset” with no criteria of how a pixel offset is determined, if at all. The dependent claims provide limitations as to correcting a flight time of an ink droplet, however there is no criteria provided for why the flight time would be corrected, by how much, when this is done, for which nozzles, and based on what criteria for correcting. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine from the claims and specification what “based on a target diameter and actual diameter of the irregular container” pertains to or how it is utilized. For example, how does one of ordinary skill in the art know the diameter is different during the determination of pixel offset? Further, the specification does not shed any light on the criteria for determining a pixel offset or the criteria for correcting the “determined” pixel offset.
Claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasoning and rationale as Claim 1.
Examiner for purposes of examination will evaluate the claims based on the broadest reasonable interpretation which is correcting a drop of an image when printed on an irregular container.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kraus et al. (EP 2 591 917 A1), hereinafter Kraus.
With regard to Claim 1, Kraus discloses a direct printing method for printing on an irregular container (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
determining a pixel offset for a pixel of a printing original for a printed image based on a target diameter and an actual diameter of the irregular container to be printed on (¶0006-0007, 0019-0020, 0027-0029); wherein, based on the determined pixel offset, generating a corrected printing original (¶0027-0029); and based on the corrected printing original, applying the printed image to the irregular container using a direct printing apparatus having a plurality of printing nozzles (¶0027-0031).
With regard to Claim 2, Kraus further discloses wherein determining the pixel offset comprises determining a first pixel offset term for correcting a time of flight of an ink droplet ejected by a printing nozzle of the plurality of printing nozzles (¶0028-0031).
With regard to Claim 3, Kraus further discloses wherein the first pixel offset term is determined based on a target surface speed of the irregular container (¶0028), a flight speed of the ink droplet (¶0028), and a pixel density of the printed image (¶0062-0064).
With regard to Claim 4, Kraus further discloses wherein determining the pixel offset comprises determining a second pixel offset term for correcting a change in flight speed of an ink droplet ejected by a printing nozzle of the plurality of printing nozzles (¶0015-0017).
With regard to Claim 6, Kraus further discloses wherein determining the pixel offset comprises determining a third pixel offset term for correcting a composition-dependent flight behavior of an ink droplet ejected by a printing nozzle of the plurality of printing nozzles (¶0057-0072).
With regard to Claim 7, Kraus further discloses wherein the third pixel offset term is determined based on a relative composition-dependent correction factor and a ratio of target diameter and a minimum diameter of the irregular container (¶0024; 0055-0057).
With regard to Claim 8, Kraus further discloses wherein the plurality of printing nozzles of the direct printing apparatus are arranged in at least two rows of printing nozzle rows adjacent to one another in the printing direction (Fig. 2, nozzle rows 4a), and wherein determining the pixel offset comprises determining a fourth pixel offset term for correcting a direct printing apparatus having at least two adjacent printing nozzle rows (¶0052).
With regard to Claim 9, Kraus further discloses wherein the fourth pixel offset term is determined based on a distance of the rows of printing nozzles (¶0052-0054).
With regard to Claim 10, Kraus further discloses wherein the printing original is divided into different color layers before determining the pixel offset, and the pixel offset is determined separately for each color layer (¶0057, 0072).
With regard to Claim 11, Kraus further discloses wherein a corrected printing original is determined based on the determined pixel offsets for each color layer (¶0057, 0072).
With regard to Claim 12, Kraus further discloses wherein determining the pixel offset comprises determining a second pixel offset term for correcting a change in flight speed of an ink droplet ejected by a printing nozzle of the plurality of printing nozzles (¶0054-0057).
With regard to Claim 20, Kraus further discloses a direct printing apparatus for printing on irregular containers (¶0002), wherein the direct printing apparatus comprises a printing module having a plurality of printing nozzles and a control unit (¶0003-0007), wherein the control unit is designed to carry out the method of claim 1 (¶0035).
Claim(s) 5 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus, in view of Chen et al. (CN 116381266 A), using a machine translation, hereinafter Chen.
With regard to Claim 5, Kraus further discloses wherein the second pixel offset term is determined based on a pixel density (¶0062-0064), a target surface speed of the irregular container (¶0054-0056; 0028), a flight speed of the ink droplet when exiting a printing nozzle of the plurality of printing nozzles (¶0054-0056), and an average speed of the ink droplet.
Kraus does not explicitly disclose an average speed of the ink droplet.
The secondary reference of Chen discloses using average speed of the ink droplet in speed calculation (pg. 10, last two paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the average speed of Chen, with the method of Kraus, in order to optimize the speed calculation method, as taught by Chen (pg. 10, last two paragraphs).
With regard to Claim 13, Kraus further discloses wherein the second pixel offset term is determined based on a pixel density (¶0062-0064), a target surface speed of the irregular container (¶0054-0056; 0028), a flight speed of the ink droplet when exiting a printing nozzle of the plurality of printing nozzles (¶0054-0056), and an average speed of the ink droplet.
Kraus does not explicitly disclose an average speed of the ink droplet.
The secondary reference of Chen discloses using average speed of the ink droplet in speed calculation (pg. 10, last two paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the average speed of Chen, with the method of Kraus, in order to optimize the speed calculation method, as taught by Chen (pg. 10, last two paragraphs).
With regard to Claim 14, Kraus further discloses wherein determining the pixel offset comprises determining a third pixel offset term for correcting a composition-dependent flight behavior of an ink droplet ejected by a printing nozzle of the plurality of printing nozzles (¶0057-0072).
With regard to Claim 15, Kraus further discloses wherein the third pixel offset term is determined based on a relative composition-dependent correction factor and a ratio of target diameter and a minimum diameter of the irregular container (¶0024; 0055-0057).
With regard to Claim 16, Kraus further discloses wherein the plurality of printing nozzles of the direct printing apparatus are arranged in at least two rows of printing nozzle rows adjacent to one another in the printing direction (Fig. 2, nozzle rows 4a), and wherein determining the pixel offset comprises determining a fourth pixel offset term for correcting a direct printing apparatus having at least two adjacent printing nozzle rows (¶0052).
With regard to Claim 17, Kraus further discloses wherein the fourth pixel offset term is determined based on a distance of the rows of printing nozzles (¶0052-0054).
With regard to Claim 18, Kraus further discloses wherein the printing original is divided into different color layers before determining the pixel offset, and the pixel offset is determined separately for each color layer (¶0057, 0072).
With regard to Claim 19, Kraus further discloses wherein a corrected printing original is determined based on the determined pixel offsets for each color layer (¶0057, 0072).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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 Rodriguez can be reached on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853