DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the material processed at the cutting stage” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 12, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintapalli et al. (2024/0033823) in view of Nacken et al. (2017/0106671).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Chintapalli teaches an industrial printing device and processing method comprising at least an input stage (fig. 3, stage corresponding to roll 52), an output stage (fig. 3, stage corresponding to roll 92), a cutting stage (fig. 3, stage corresponding to cutter 62 upstream of printer stage 42), and a printer stage (fig. 3, stage corresponding to printer 42),
wherein a roll of blank material is provided at the input stage, and wherein a roll of cut and printed material is collected at the output stage (see fig. 3),
wherein the printer stage is arranged between the input stage and the output stage (see fig. 3), and
wherein the cutting stage comprises a laser cutting device ([0062]) such that material is continuously processable between the input stage and output stage by at least the cutting stage and the printer stage ([0062], Note that material is “continuously processed.” Note that the claimed stages have not been specified to be stages in a processing operation or actual, physical platforms. The former interpretation has been adopted).
Chintapalli does not teach a roll of cut printed material with printed cut edges is collected at the output stage. Nacken teaches this (Nacken, see fig. 1, Note cutter 4 cuts sheet S, and the cut sheets are rolled up on take-up roller R). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to roll cut sheets up after processing, as disclosed by Nacken, instead of stacking the cut sheets in a bin, as disclosed by Chintapalli, because doing so would amount to the simple substitution of one known media collection technique for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, further comprising a priming stage arranged downstream of the cutting stage and upstream of the printer stage (Chintapalli, [0092], Note that the primer stage is necessarily upstream of the printer stage for the printer to be able to deposit print material onto priming liquid).
Regarding claim 3, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 3, wherein the priming stage is at least configured to prime cut edges of the material such that the primed cut edges of the material are printable (Chintapalli, Note that the entirety of the print medium is primed, and thus the edges are necessarily printable. Note also that “printable” has not been defined with any specificity).
Regarding claim 6, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, further comprising a single motion control device (Chintapalli, fig. 8, item 104) configured to control a motion of the material guided through different stages of the industrial printing device (Chintapalli, [0104]-[0110]).
Regarding claim 7, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 6, wherein the single motion control device is configured to ensure a registration between the material and the cutting stage (Chintapalli, Note that the processor facilitates movement of the material through the stages and is therefore “configured to ensure registration” with the material at all stages).
Regarding claim 8, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 6, wherein the material is guided at a constant speed through the different stages of the industrial printing device (Chintapalli, [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 6, wherein the single motion control device is configured to ensure a registration between the material and the cutting wherein the motion control device comprises a unified tension control for the material through different stages of the industrial printing machine (Chintapalli, Note that “unified tension control” has not been defined with any specificity. Because the processor controls the tension through the system, the processor reads on the claimed unified tension control).
Regarding claim 10, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, wherein the printer stage comprises a flex or digital inkjet printer device (Chintapalli, [0063]).
Regarding claim 11, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, wherein a roll of blank material is provided at the input stage, and wherein a roll of finished material is collected at the output stage (Chintapalli, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, further comprising, downstream of the printer stage and upstream of the output stage, at least one of an analog or digital embellishment stage (Chintapalli, fig. 4, item 45), a varnish stage, and a matrix rewinding stage (Chintapalli, [0044], Note that “digital embellishment” has not been defined in any way. The disclosed anti-sintering deposition subsystem is being taken to read on the digital embellishment stage).
Regarding claim 16, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, wherein the laser cutting device operates at a homogenous power (Chintapalli, Note that this could mean any number of things. The language is being taken to mean that, as long as the power provided to the laser cutting for any period of usage stays constant, the limitation is met. Note that any laser cutter, including that of the prior art, could be provided with constant power for some arbitrarily small or lager period of time).
Regarding claim 17, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, wherein the material processed at the cutting tage has a homogenous material thickness (Chintapalli, see fig. 3, Note that the entire sheet all has the same thickness).
Regarding claim 18, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, wherein the a cutting speed at the cutting stage is equivalent to a printing speed at the printing stage (Chintapalli, see fig. 3, Note that this could mean almost anything. “Cutting speed” and “printing speed” have not been defined. Note that the speed of the medium is being taken to be both of the cutting and printing speeds).
Regarding claim 19, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, wherein the laser cutting device is configured to reduce sharp cut edges of the material (Chintapalli, Note that this could mean almost anything. The claim does not define how the cutting device is “configured to” reduce sharp cut edges, and it is assumed any cutter would be “configured” to cut smooth rather than sharp).
Regarding claim 20, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1, wherein the lase cutting device is configured to change from a first cutting layout to a second cutting layout without interruption to the industrial printing device (Chintapalli, see fig. 3, Note that the claimed layouts and “without interruption to the industrial printing maching” have not been defined. Here, Examiner is taking two consecutive cuts to be first and second “cutting layouts,” and the no “interruption” occurs).
Regarding claim 21, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 6, wherein the single motion control device aligns the material once at the input stage (Chintapalli, see fig. 3, Note that this could mean almost anything. That is, any device controlling or impacting any motion of the medium can be said to “align the material once at the input stage”).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintapalli in view of Nacken as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of De Ponnat et al. (2004/0043336).
Regarding claim 4, Chintapalli in view of Nacken teaches an industrial printing device of claim 2. Chintapalli in view of Nacken does not teach a web cleaning stage provided downstream of the cutting stage and upstream of the priming stage. De Ponnat teaches this (De Ponnat, fig. 2, Note electrostatic cleaning brush 19 just downstream of cutter 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a cleaning device downstream of any cutter in an industrial processing system because doing so would allow for removal of dust and debris after cutting.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintapalli in view of Nacken and De Ponnat as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shahin et al. (2023/0249933)
Regarding claim 5, Chintapalli in view of Nacken and De Ponnat teaches an industrial printing device of claim 4. Chintapalli in view of Nacken and De Ponnat does not teach a buffer stage provided downstream of the web cleaning stage and upstream of the priming stage. Shahin teaches an industrial printing system with a buffer just upstream of a primer application section (Shahin, fig. 1, Note priming rollers 110 and buffer section 140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the buffer section disclosed by Shahin just upstream of Chintapalli in view of De Ponnat’s priming device because doing so would ensure feeding of the material to the priming applicator at the proper rate, thereby ensuring reliable of all of the printing material.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintapalli in view of Nacken as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas et al. (2022/0169064).
Regarding claim 13, Chintapalli teaches an industrial printing device of claim 1. Chintapalli does not teach wherein the material is guided through the industrial printing device at a minimum speed of 30 m per minute, more preferably at a minimum speed of 60 m per minute more preferably at a speed of 80 m per minute, more preferably at a speed of 100 m per minute. Thomas teaches this (Thomas, [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the processing speed disclosed by Thomas to the device of Chintapalli because doing so would amount to combining known processing speed with a known material processing device to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights