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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 12 of the claim recites, “an additional print player is printed (emphasis added).” It appears this recitation contains a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, "the same curable lacquer," in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman et al. (US 5583550 A), hereinafter Hickman, in view of Ihara (US 2020/0398565 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hickman teaches a method for printing at least one precise line by means of inkjet printing, comprising the steps of: providing a substrate having a substrate surface to be printed on (fig. 1, film 22, pen 24, col. 4, lines 2-15); printing a first print layer onto the substrate surface, for which purpose at least one print head nozzle and the substrate surface are moved relative to each other along a nozzle path, and wherein the at least one print head nozzle prints several printing-medium drops in immediate succession along the nozzle path to form a line portion and subsequently leaves clear a printing gap without a printing medium on the substrate surface in order to reduce a flowing of the printing medium along the line portion (fig. 2, lines H and V, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29); surface-drying the printing medium of the first print layer before an additional print layer is printed, such that at least the additional printing medium of the subsequent print layer, which is printed onto the surface-dried printing medium, no longer runs with the surface-dried printing medium, and/or so that liquid printing medium of the subsequent print layer with the surface-dried printing medium substantially forms the same contact angle as completely dried printing medium (col. 6, lines 31-41); printing at least one additional print layer by moving the at least one print head nozzle and the substrate surface relative to each other along the nozzle path, wherein the at least one print head nozzle prints several printing-medium drops in immediate succession to form an additional line portion, wherein the additional line portion printed in the additional print layer is arranged immediately adjacent to or overlapping with the line portion which precedes and/or comes after along the nozzle path and which was printed in a prior print layer (fig. 2, drop clusters 44’, col. 6, lines 21-45).
However, Hickman fails to teach or fairly suggest the surface-drying being technically assisted.
Ihara teaches a printing apparatus comprising a carriage, wherein the carriage comprises a drying unit that dries ink immediately after being ejected onto a printing medium, is well known in the art (figs. 1-2, 12; carriage 42, drying unit 50, carriage blower 53; ¶[0042], [0054]-[0055], [0100]-[0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the drying unit and its operation as taught by Ihara into the method of Hickman in order to accelerate the drying of the printed ink droplets.
Regarding claim 2, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein each printing-medium drop is printed in a field of a grid of printing positions in rows and columns, wherein the line portion printed in the first print layer and/or the following printing gap each extend over several fields of a row arranged one after the other, and all the printing-medium drops printed in a single print layer are connected to form a line portion, and/or all the line portions of all print layers are connected to form a line (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 3, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein each printed line portion and/or each printing gap is/are from 1 to 100 fields long or is/are formed from a corresponding number of the printing-medium drops (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 4, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein each printed line portion is 1 to 100 fields long or is formed from a corresponding number of the printing-medium drops, and/or each printing gap is from 2 to 100 fields long or is formed from a corresponding number of the printing-medium drops (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 5, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein complete printing of the precise line takes place in two print layers, and/or the additional line portions of a last print layer at least completely fill the remaining printing gaps between previously printed line portions (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 6, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein the additional portion(s) are each printed overlapping with the line portion which precedes and which comes after along the nozzle path and which was printed in a prior print layer, so that both ends of the additional line portion meet the previously printed and already surface-dried printing medium (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 7, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein an overlap between a previously printed line portion and an additional line portion of an additional print layer is from 1 to 3 fields or a corresponding number of the printing-medium drops (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 8, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein the complete printing of a precise line takes place in several print layers of first and additional line portions (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 9, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein the printing takes place in all print layers and/or all line portions by use of the same printing medium (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 10, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein all the printing medium drops of a print layer are printed along a nozzle path by the same print head nozzle, and/or in that the line portions of a nozzle path are each printed with a different print head nozzle in each print layer (fig. 2, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’, col. 4, line 29 to col. 5, line 29, col. 6, lines 21-45).
Regarding claim 11, Hickman as modified by Ihara teaches the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Hickman further teaches wherein completely printing an entire surface of the substrate takes place in several print layers of first and additional line portions (fig. 2; lines H and V, pixels 40, ink drops 44a-d, drop clusters 44’; col. 4, line 6 to col. 5, line 29 and col. 6, lines 21-45).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickman as modified by Ihara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schlatterbeck et al. (US 2019/0224968 A1), hereinafter Schlatterbeck.
Regarding claim 12, Hickman as modified by Ihara the method for printing at least one precise line according to claim 1. Both Hickman and Ihara fail to teach or fairly suggest the printing takes place in all print layers and/or all line portions by use of the same curable lacquer.
However, Schlatterbeck teaches an inkjet printing device and method to print using lacquers are well known in the art (fig. 1; application device 7, fluid application material 9, fluid film 11, polymer coating 12, control device 13, curing device 23, ink-jet nozzles 70; ¶[0034]-[0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the lacquer and printing method of Schlatterbeck into the method of Hickman as modified by Ihara in order to prevent streaks forming in the printed lacquer image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-7 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, with respect to claims 2-4, 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 2-4, 7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5 and 7 of Remarks, filed February 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hickman and Ihara, detailed above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853