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
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-11 and 14-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Stritzel does not teach the intentional defects form a visual noise but the examiner disagrees. Visual noise is visual elements that obscure or distract from a subject. The patterns added by Stritzel are designed to obscure the white line defect by adding adjacent blacklines (Fig. 6 element 13) and lesser toned lines (Fig. element 14). Theses darker lines distract from the white line by drawing the eye away from it, obscuring it in a similar way to the claimed invention. Furthermore, the examiner disagrees that the claimed invention does not compensate for failed printing nozzles. It does compensate for the failed nozzles, in a similar way to Stritzel, by adding addition printed matter to conceal a defect caused by a defective nozzle. There is no difference between compensating for a defective nozzle, like Stritzel does, and hiding a banding defect, like the claimed invention does, because a banding defect is caused by a defective nozzle. So, both use similar methods to achieve the same result. As such the 103 rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-20 is maintained and the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the rejections.
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, 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 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). 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853