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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claim(s) 1-18 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method/apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted by applicant on 05/06/2024 has/have been considered. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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 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.
1. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120249658 to Murai (hereinafter “Murai”).
With respect to claim 1, Murai discloses a method for detecting missing jets in a precoat solution application system of an ink jet printing system (S150 FIG. 5), comprising: providing print media into a path of a printer comprising a precoat application system (“M”/“WM” FIG. 1); passing the print media past the precoat application system ([0029]-[0030], [0035] FIG.s 3A-3C); passing the print media in proximity to an ink jet printhead (FIG.s 3A-3C); jetting a plurality of drops of a first ink onto the print media to form a solid patch of the first ink on a first surface of the print media (51(k) FIG. 3A-3C); passing the print media in proximity to the precoat application system (FIG.s 3A-3C); applying a precoat solution onto the dried solid patch of ink on the first surface of the print media (FIG. 3C, FIG. 6C, FIG. 7C); and analyzing the print media to determine a presence of a defect in the application of the precoat solution (S150 FIG. 5).
However, FIG. 5 of Murai fails to specifically disclose:
passing the print media through a dryer to dry the solid patch of the first ink on the first surface of the print media.
Murai does disclose:
passing the print media through a dryer to dry the solid patch of the first ink on the first surface of the print media (“…a drying time may be set within a period after completion of printing the primer until a start of printing the test pattern; and moreover a drying heater may be built in the platen 12a.” [0039]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dryer as disclosed by [0039] with the method/apparatus of Murai. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent ink from bleeding. ([0039] of Murai).
With respect to claim 2, Murai discloses wherein the precoat application system comprises a printhead configured to jet individual drops of precoat solution onto print media (printer head 22).
With respect to claim 3, Murai discloses wherein applying a precoat solution onto the print media to form a solid patch of ink on a first surface of the print media comprises applying the precoat solution in a predetermined target pattern (FIG.s 3A-3C, FIG.s 6A-6C, FIG.s 7A-7C).
With respect to claim 6, Murai discloses wherein analyzing the print media further comprises comparing an intended area of precoat solution application with the actual result of precoat solution applied to the dried solid patch of ink (FIG.s 3A-3C, FIG.s 6A-6C, FIG.s 7A-7C).
With respect to claim 10, Murai discloses wherein analyzing the print media to determine a presence of a defect further comprises determining a visual change in ink appearance after application of the precoat solution (S150 FIG. 5).
With respect to claim 12, Murai discloses A method for detecting missing jets in a precoat solution application system of an ink jet printing system (S150 FIG. 5), comprising: providing print media into a path of a printer comprising a precoat application system (“M”/”WM” FIG. 1); passing the print media past the precoat application system comprising a printhead configured to jet individual drops of precoat solution onto print media ([0029]-[0030], [0035] FIG.s 3A-3C); passing the print media in proximity to an ink jet printhead (FIG.s 3A-3C); jetting a plurality of drops of a first ink onto the print media to form a solid patch of the first ink on a first surface of the print media (51(k) FIG. 3A-3C); passing the print media in proximity to the precoat application system ([0029]-[0030], [0035] FIG.s 3A-3C); applying a precoat solution onto the dried solid patch of ink on the first surface of the print media (FIG. 3C, FIG. 6C, FIG. 7C); and analyzing the print media to determine a presence of a defect in the application of the precoat solution (S150 FIG. 5).
However, FIG. 5 of Murai fails to specifically disclose:
passing the print media through a dryer to dry the solid patch of the first ink on the first surface of the print media;
Murai does disclose:
passing the print media through a dryer to dry the solid patch of the first ink on the first surface of the print media (“…a drying time may be set within a period after completion of printing the primer until a start of printing the test pattern; and moreover a drying heater may be built in the platen 12a.” [0039]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dryer as disclosed by [0039] with the method/apparatus of Murai. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent ink from bleeding. ([0039] of Murai).
With respect to claim 13, Murai discloses wherein applying a precoat solution onto the print media to form a solid patch of ink on a first surface of the print media comprises applying the precoat solution in a predetermined target pattern (FIG.s 3A-3C, FIG.s 6A-6C, FIG.s 7A-7C).
2. Claim(s) 4, 5, 7, 8, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120249658 to Murai (hereinafter “Murai”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140368571 to Boland et al. (hereinafter “Boland”).
With respect to claim 4, Murai discloses the method for detecting missing jets in a precoat solution application system of claim 1, wherein analyzing the print media to determine a presence of a defect in the application of the precoat solution.
However, Murai fails to specifically disclose:
comprises scanning a top surface of the print media to capture an image of the surface of the print media.
Boland discloses:
comprises scanning a top surface of the print media to capture an image of the surface of the print media (camera or scanner [0043]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the camera or scanner as disclosed by Boland with the method/apparatus of Murai. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve analysis of the print media and image. ([0043] of Boland).
With respect to claim 5, Murai in view of Boland discloses wherein a scanner is integrated into a media path of the ink jet printing system (80 FIG. 2 of Murai and camera or scanner [0043] of Boland).
With respect to claim 7, Murai in view of Boland discloses further comprising viewing the print media with the solid ink patch and the applied precoat solution through a color filter (80 FIG. 2 of Murai and camera or scanner [0043] of Boland).
With respect to claim 8, Murai in view of Boland discloses further comprising viewing the print media with the solid ink patch and the applied precoat solution through a color filter using a light source (80 FIG. 2 of Murai and camera or scanner [0043] of Boland).
With respect to claim 14, Murai in view of Boland discloses wherein analyzing the print media to determine a presence of a defect in the application of the precoat solution comprises scanning a top surface of the print media to capture an image of the surface of the print media (camera or scanner [0043]).
With respect to claim 15, Murai in view of Boland discloses wherein a scanner is integrated into a media path of the ink jet printing system (80 FIG. 2 of Murai and camera or scanner [0043] of Boland).
With respect to claim 16, Murai in view of Boland discloses further comprising viewing the print media with the solid ink patch and the applied precoat solution through a color filter or a light source (80 FIG. 2 of Murai and camera or scanner [0043] of Boland).
3. Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120249658 to Murai (hereinafter “Murai”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190315129 to McConville et al. (hereinafter “McConville”).
With respect to claim 9, Murai discloses the method for detecting missing jets in a precoat solution application system of claim 1.
However, Murai fails to specifically disclose:
further comprising evaluating the print media to determine a delta L* value or a color density value.
McConville discloses:
further comprising evaluating the print media to determine a delta L* value or a color density value (80 FIG. 2 of Murai and scanner [0010], [0042], densitometer [0036]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaluate the print media as disclosed by McConville with the method/apparatus of Murai. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve detection of the missing jets. ([0042] of McConville).
With respect to claim 17, Murai in view of McConville discloses further comprising evaluating the print media to determine a delta L* value or a color density value (80 FIG. 2 of Murai and scanner [0010], [0042], densitometer [0036]).
4. Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120249658 to Murai (hereinafter “Murai”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210300100 to Van Dijkman et al. (hereinafter “Van Dijkman”).
With respect to claim 11, Murai discloses the method for detecting missing jets in a precoat solution application system of claim 1.
However, Murai fails to specifically disclose:
wherein a precoat solution composition in the precoat application system comprises 5 % wt to 40 % wt of a salt in an aqueous solution based on a total weight of the aqueous solution.
Van Dijkman discloses:
wherein a precoat solution composition in the precoat application system comprises 5 % wt to 40 % wt of a salt in an aqueous solution based on a total weight of the aqueous solution ([0022]).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition as disclosed by Van Dijkman with the method/apparatus of Murai. The motivation for doing so would have been so that the solution properly jets from the print head. ([0023] of Van Dijkman).
With respect to claim 18, Murai in view of Van Dijkman discloses wherein a precoat solution composition in the precoat application system comprises 5 % wt to 40 % wt of a salt in an aqueous solution based on a total weight of the aqueous solution ([0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley W Thies whose telephone number is (571)270-5667. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 am -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, 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRADLEY W THIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853