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 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04 April 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nick et al. (US 9,333,741 B2).
As related to independent claim 7, Nick et al. teaches a direct printing method for printing on an irregular container (Nick et al. – Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32 and Figures 1 - 4 shown below). Nick et al. does not specifically teach the same terminology with respect to the pixel line and pixel number(s). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the method of Nick et al. which takes into account the pixel numbers and lines to create templates based on a shape of a surface region of an irregular container [i.e. bottle] to print on a cylindrical rotationally symmetrical body, would perform the same direct printing method in an effort to provide a printing method which can adjust the printing based on inter alia line shift and pixel density for printing on irregular containers [i.e. rotationally symmetrical objects and non-cylindrical containers] (Nick et al. – Column 1, Line 20 – Column 2, Line 6). Nick et al. therefore teaches wherein at least one pixel line with a pixel number n of a print template for a print image based on a shape of a surface region of the irregular container is extended by a pixel number m, wherein the information contained in the original pixel line is scaled to the extended pixel line, wherein a corrected print template is generated based on the at least one extended pixel line (Nick et al. – Column 2, Lines 16-39; Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 38; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 6-8, shown below), wherein the print image is applied to the surface region of the irregular container by means of a direct printing device having a plurality of printing nozzles based on the corrected print template (Nick et al. – Column 3, Lines 1-14; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 1, 3, 4, & 8, shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
266
171
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
220
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
314
270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
276
244
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
390
550
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
356
524
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 8, Nick et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the scaling of the information contained in the original pixel line to the extended pixel line comprises an interpolation between two adjacent pixels of the original pixel line (Nick et al. – Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 38).
As related to dependent claim 9, Nick et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a direct printing device for printing on an irregular container, comprising a direct printing head having a plurality of printing nozzles, wherein the printing nozzles are arranged in at least one printing nozzle row, and a control unit, wherein the control unit is designed to perform the method (Nick et al. – Column 3, Lines 1-14; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 1 - 4 & 6 - 8, shown above).
As related to independent claim 10, Nick et al. teaches a direct printing method for printing on a container (Nick et al. – Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32 and Figures 1 - 4 shown above). Nick et al. does not specifically teach the same terminology with respect to the corrected print template and pixel offset. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the method of Nick et al. which takes into account the pixel numbers and lines to create templates based on a shape of a surface region of an irregular container [i.e. bottle] to print on a cylindrical rotationally symmetrical body, would perform the same direct printing method in an effort to provide a printing method which can adjust the printing based on inter alia corrected print template and determined pixel offset for printing on a container [i.e. rotationally symmetrical objects and non-cylindrical containers] (Nick et al. – Column 1, Line 20 – Column 2, Line 6). Nick et al. therefore teaches wherein at a pixel offset is determined for at least one pixel of a print template for a print image based on an offset of a first printing nozzle arranged on one side of a direct printing head comprising printing nozzles and a second printing nozzle arranged on an opposite side of the direct printing head with respect to a print plane, wherein a corrected print template is generated based on the determined pixel offset, wherein the print image is applied to the container by means of the direct printing device based on the corrected print template (Nick et al. – Column 2, Lines 16-39; Column 3, Lines 1-14; Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 38; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 2 & 6-8, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 11, Nick et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the printing nozzles of the direct printing head are arranged in at least one printing nozzle row and the pixel offset is determined based on an offset of a first printing nozzle arranged at one end of a printing nozzle row and a second printing nozzle arranged at the other end of the printing nozzle row with respect to the print plane and/or wherein the pixel offset is determined based on an offset between a first printing nozzle of a first printing nozzle row arranged at one end of the direct printing head and a second printing nozzle of a second printing nozzle row arranged at the other end of the direct printing head with respect to the print plane (Nick et al. – Column 1, Line 58 – Column 2, Line 24, Column 3, Lines 1-38; Column 4, Lies 41-67 and Figure 2, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 12, Nick et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the pixel offset is determined based on the maximum number of printing nozzles of the direct printing head and the position of the pixel (Nick et al. – Column 2, Lines 16-39; Column 3, Lines 1-14; Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 38; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 2 & 6-8, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 13, Nick et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a direct printing device for printing on a container, comprising a direct printing head having a plurality of printing nozzles, wherein the printing nozzles are arranged in at least one printing nozzle row, and a control unit, wherein the control unit is designed to carry out the method (Nick et al. – Column 3, Lines 1-14; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 1 - 4 & 6 - 8, shown above).
Claims 1-6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nick et al. (US 9,333,741 B2) in view of Itoh et al. (US 2022/0410599 A1).
As related to independent claim 1, Nick et al. teaches a direct printing method for printing on a container having a print image by means of a direct printing device comprising a direct printing head with at least one printing nozzle row (Nick et al. – Column 3, Lines 1-14; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 1 - 4 & 6 - 8, shown above). Nick et al. does not teach an ink mist extraction unit, and does not specifically teach the same terminology with respect to the corrected print template and pixel offset. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the method of Nick et al. which takes into account the pixel numbers and lines to create templates based on a shape of a surface region of an irregular container [i.e. bottle] to print on a cylindrical rotationally symmetrical body, would perform the same direct printing method in an effort to provide a printing method which can adjust the printing based on inter alia corrected print template and determined pixel offset for printing on a container [i.e. rotationally symmetrical objects and non-cylindrical containers] (Nick et al. – Column 1, Line 20 – Column 2, Line 6). Meanwhile, Itoh et al. teaches a direct printing method for printing on a medium having a print image by means of a direct printing device comprising a direct printing head with at least one printing nozzle row and an ink mist extraction unit (Itoh et al. – Page 11, Paragraphs 139-144; Page 12, Paragraphs 149-160; and Figures 9 & 17, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the direct printing method of Nick et al. to include the ink mist extraction unit of Itoh et al. in an effort to enable the ink mist and vapor between the recording head and the medium to be forced out and collected (Itoh et al. – Page 11, Para 142) and avoid ink mist adhering to a face of the print nozzles prevent faulty discharge (Itoh et al. – Page 1, Paragraph 2). The combination of Nick et al. and Itoh et al. therefore teaches wherein a pixel offset is determined for at least one pixel of a print template for the print image based on a model for a print deviation from a normal pressure value caused by the ink mist extraction along the print nozzle row, wherein a corrected print template is generated based on the determined pixel offset, wherein the print image is applied to the container by means of the direct printing device based on the corrected print template (Nick et al. – Column 2, Lines 16-39; Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 38; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 6-8, shown above and Itoh et al. – Figure 5, shown below).
PNG
media_image8.png
372
696
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
474
672
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
490
678
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As related to dependent claim 2, the combination of Nick et al. and Itoh et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the model of the print deviation is determined based on a maximum print deviation at a position of a printing nozzle row from the normal pressure value, a first print deviation from the normal pressure value at a first printing nozzle arranged at one end of the printing nozzle row and a second print deviation from the normal pressure value at a second printing nozzle arranged at the other end of the printing nozzle row (Nick et al. – Column 1, Line 58 – Column 2, Line 24, Column 3, Lines 1-38; Column 4, Lies 41-67 and Figure 2, shown above and Itoh et al. – Page 12, Paragraphs 149-160).
As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of Nick et al. and Itoh et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach in the event that the maximum print deviation is at a position between the first printing nozzle and the second printing nozzle, the print deviation along the printing nozzle row is determined in a first region of the printing nozzle row by linear interpolation between the first print deviation and the maximum print deviation and in a second region of the printing nozzle row by linear interpolation between the second print deviation and the maximum print deviation (Nick et al. – Column 1, Line 58 – Column 2, Line 24, Column 3, Lines 1-38; Column 4, Lies 41-67 and Figure 2, shown above and Itoh et al. – Page 12, Paragraphs 149-160).
As related to dependent claim 4, the combination of Nick et al. and Itoh et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the pixel offset is determined based on the print deviation model for at least one pixel line of the print template (Nick et al. – Column 2, Lines 16-39; Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 38; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 6-8, shown above and Itoh et al. – Page 12, Paragraphs 149-160).
As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of Nick et al. and Itoh et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach a direct printing device for printing on a container, comprising a direct printing head having a plurality of printing nozzles, wherein the printing nozzles are arranged in at least one printing nozzle row, an ink mist extraction unit and a control unit, wherein the control unit is designed to carry out the method (Nick et al. – Column 3, Lines 1-14; Column 8, Line 46 – Column 9, Line 32; and Figures 1 - 4 & 6 - 8, shown above and Itoh et al. – Figure 5 and Figures 9 & 17, Reference #30 & #33, shown above).
As related to further dependent claim 6, the combination of Nick et al. and Itoh et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the ink mist extraction unit is arranged on a side surface of the direct printing head (Itoh et al. - Figures 9 & 17, Reference #30 & #33, shown above).
As related to dependent claim 14, the combination of Nick et al. and Itoh et al. remains as applied above and continues to teach the print template is divided into different color layers and a corrected print template is created for each color layer (Nick et al. – Column 1, Line 64 – Column 2, Line 6; Column 5, Line 45 – Column 6, Line 29; Column 10, Lines 28-53; and Figure 8, shown above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Till (US 2012/0199021 A1) teaches a direct printing method for printing on an irregular container or bottle. Ishida et al. (US 8,277,040 B2) teaches a direct printing method using an inkjet printer with an ink mist recovery unit. Knott et al. (US 2015/0033965 A1) teaches a direct printing method for printing on an irregular container or bottle using multiple print heads and compensating and correcting for misalignment. Maesaka (US 9,815,301 B2) teaches an inkjet direct printing method with an ink mist processor for collecting the ink mist. Weber et al. (US 2019/0111709 A1) teaches a direct printing method for printing on an irregular container or bottle with multiple controls and drying modules. Sasaki (US 10,596,841 B2) teaches a direct printing method which uses an inkjet printer and an ink mist extraction unit which uses shields to prevent airflow from impacting the droplet direction. Casey et al. (US 2023/0045018 A1) teaches a direct printing method for printing on an irregular container using nozzle rows and an exhaust system. Kemma et al. (US 11,633,958 B2) teaches a direct printing method using a plurality of nozzle rows on a print head and an ink mist extraction unit.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 responses, to fully consider the references in their 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 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, 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 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.
/John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853