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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, filed on 06/16/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. The applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1, to add the limitation that the intentional defect appears “apparently random”, overcomes the usage of Stritzel due to its orderly method of adding pixels. First and foremost, the amendment merits a rejection under 35 USC 112b since apparently random is relative terminology (see the below 112b rejection for more details). Furthermore, to the extent the claim is clear in scope, Stitzel’s additions would be apparently random.
The applicant points to a series of quotes to address how Stitzel’s orderly approach would not be apparently random saying that the first halftone image 13 and second halftone image 14 are well defined and structured which the examiner acknowledges is true. However, these corrective images are not used alone to cover for a defect but rather in together with the original halftone image 10, as shown by Fig. 6. This final pattern to an end user would appear random and invisible (as is the intention of the invention) despite the complex rules that went into crafting the pattern. Furthermore, the invention cites mixing halftone images (Strizel paragraph [0015]), increasing the number of corrected columns (Strizel paragraph [0015]) and using 2 different halftone images to the left and right of the defect (Stritzel paragraph [0018]) which would add to the apparent randomness. To summarize, the usage of detailed rules does not preclude the final product from apparent randomness. Many things in our lives appear random but actually have detailed rules governing them such as ZIP codes, license plates, QR codes, the keyboard layout and random number generators. As such Stritzel continues to render claim 1 of the instant application not novel as its compensation method is apparently random.
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 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.
The term “apparently random” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “apparently random” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To whom is the additional pixels apparently random, the inventor, one of ordinary skill in the art or an end user? Furthermore, even within these groups there would be a vast difference as to what they would determine to appear random.
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 1-11, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al. (US 20200223230 A1) in view of Stritzel (US 20180264839 A1).
Regarding to claim 1, to the extent this claim is clear in scope regarding the above 112b rejection, Krieger et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a decorative substrate comprising providing a master image (paragraph [0019]), printing the master image on a first printable substrate (Fig 1. element 2) using an inkjet printer (Fig. 1 element 7), thereby obtaining a first decorative substrate (Fig. 10 and paragraph [0043]), evaluating a printing defect (Fig. 3 element 14) in the first decorative substrate (Fig. 10 and paragraph [0013]), performing an error correction operation on the master image on the basis of the evaluation to obtain a corrected master image (Fig. 10 and paragraph [0018]), and printing the corrected master image on a second printable substrate to obtain a second decorative substrate (Fig. 10 and paragraph [0018]).
Krieger at al. doesn’t specifically teach the error correction operation adding an intentional defect to the master image wherein the intentional defect forms visual noise and wherein the intentional defect includes a plurality of pixels having an apparently random distribution but it does teach compensating for defects with “suitable compensation methods” in paragraph [0018].
Stritzel teaches it is well known in the art to perform inkjet printing including an error correction operation for printing that involves adding an intentional defect to the corrected master image (paragraph [0018]) where in the intentional defect forms a visual noise (Fig. 6 elements 13 and 14 in that the added elements visually obscure and distract from the white line defect) and wherein the intentional defect includes a plurality of pixels having an apparently random distribution (Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0015] and [0018] in that Fig. 6 generally appears random).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effect filing date of the invention to use the compensating method of Stritzel in the printing method of Krieger et al. as this requires simply the obvious substitution of one compensation method for another to provide greater efficiency without any negative influence on the printed images.
Regarding claim 2, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Krieger et al. teaches wherein the printing defect is banding defects (Fig. 10 and paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the error correction operation in step involves one or more of: modifying drop sizes at predetermined spots and/or modifying a number of droplets at predetermined spots (Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0013] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the error correction operation in step is performed using dedicated software (paragraphs [0013] and [0014]).
Regarding claim 5, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the intentional defect comprises additional droplets of inks of a first color tone jetted in an area of a printed décor having a predominant second color tone (Fig. 6). The first color tone is the black and the second color tone is the unprinted white area.
Regarding claim 6, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 5 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the intentional defect comprises a pixel or a group of pixels having the first color tone being surrounded by pixels having the predominant second color tone (Fig. 6 where the white covers every side of the added black ink).
Regarding claim 7, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 6 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the group of pixels is formed by less than 5 pixels (Fig 6 where the largest group of pixels added as a defect is 4).
Regarding 8, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 5 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the area of the predominant second color tone is adjacent to an area having a predominant first color tone (Fig. 6 where the white is adjacent to the black).
Regarding claim 9, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 8 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the additional droplets are present in the area having the predominant second color tone adjacent to the area having the first color tone (Fig. 6 where the added black droplets are near both the white and standard black areas).
Regarding claim 10, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 8 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the area having the predominant first color tone is formed by a group of pixels comprising at least 20 pixels (Fig. 6 where the black area is 24 pixels).
Regarding claim 11, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 5 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the area of the predominant second color tone is an unprinted area (Fig. 6 specifically the white and paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 5 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the additional droplets correspond to pixels of the corrected master image which are not present in the master image (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 15, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Stritzel teaches, as a suitable compensation method, a method wherein the intentional defect is generated by a software running on a computer (paragraphs [0013] and [0014]).
Regarding claim 16, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and wherein master image could reasonably be any image that “corresponds to” a cement, stone or wood décor. Furthermore, the intention that the master image is for a decorative panel does not confer any structural difference and is intended use and therefor the limitation has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and, Krieger et al. teaches a method wherein the first printable substrate and/or the second printable substrate is a paper sheet or a thermoplastic foil (paragraphs [0043] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and, the usage of the first and/or second substrate as a material for forming a decorative panel does not confer any structural difference to the substrate and is intended use. So, the first and/or second printed substrate could be used for any reasonable purpose such as a material for forming a decorative panel.
Regarding claim 20, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and, Krieger et al. teaches a method wherein the first and/or the second printable substrate is a colored base (paragraph [0026]). Note that white is a color.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al and Stritzel as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of “How Big Are Inkjet Printer Drops” (NPL source).
Regarding claim 12, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 5 as stated above but are silent with respect the particular size of the droplets and whether they have to a volume below 7pl. NPL document “How Big Are Inkjet Printer Drops” teaches it is well known in the art that inkjet ink drops are between 2 and 4pl for typical printers.
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have the method of Krieger et al. and Stritzel include droplets of any desired size such as below 7 pl since “How Big Are Inkjet Printer Drops” teaches that inkjet drops having a drop size below 7pl is a standard well known in the art to provide clear printing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al. and Stritzel as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tzu-Han et al. (US 20150103123 A1).
Regarding claim 13, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 5 as stated above but fail to teach a method wherein the additional droplets have an optical density (M0) below 5. Tzu-Han teaches it is well known in the art to have inkjet ink droplets for printing on decorative substrates that have optical densities below 5 (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the optical densities below 5 taught by Tzu-Han in the method of Krieger et al. as modified by Stritzel because this value is a standard well known in the art to provide clear printing.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krieger et al. and Stritzel and further in view of Vanhooydonck (US 20200230989 A1).
Regarding claim 18, to the extent this claim is clear in scope, Krieger et al. and Stritzel teach all the elements of claim 17 as stated above but they fail to teach wherein the first and/or second printable substrate is a paper sheet that is impregnated with a thermosetting resin. Vanhooydonck does teach a method of manufacturing decorative surfaces wherein the first and/or second printable substrate is a paper sheet that is impregnated with a thermos setting resin (paragraph [0053]).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the paper medium of Krieger et al. and Strizel with the thermosetting resin of Vanhooydock to better protect the printed matter beneath (paragraphs [0119] and [0120]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights