DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-4, 5-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatoukos et al. (2015/0030823) in view of Habashi (2009/0058921).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Stamatoukos teaches an inkjet printing unit and method comprising a transport system (fig. 1, note rollers), a first inkjet printing head (fig. 1, item 5), a second inkjet printing head (fig. 1, item 5 downstream of first inkjet printing head), wherein the first inkjet printing head and the second inkjet printing head work independently of each other (fig. 1, note that each printhead prints a different color so as to work independently), and a surface treatment unit (fig. 1, item 4) all meeting the claimed limitations.
Stamatoukos does not teach first and second automatic protection devices to protect from dust and light the first and second inkjet printing heads, respectively, at their resting positions, wherein the first automatic protection device includes a first shelf and the second automatic protection device includes a second shelf, wherein the first shelf and the second shelf are each movable relative to a respective support in a direction transverse to a movement direction of the respective printing head so as to move from a protection position of the respective printing head when the respective printing head is in its rest position, to a position sway from the respective printing head to allow the respective printing head to move freely in its print position, wherein the first shelf and the second shelf slide on respective guides along a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the respective printing head moves between its rest position and its print position. Habashi teaches this (Habashi, see figs. 8, 15, Note heads 11 moves vertically and shelves 151 move horizontally, transverse of the heads. Note that heads move to print position lower and rest position higher. Note that shelves necessarily slide along guides from their retracted positions to their protecting positions. Note that Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “shelf” as “a thin flat usually long and narrow piece of material fastened horizontally,” or even more broadly as “something resembling a shelf in form or position.” Here, Habashi’s capping elements 151 themselves constitute shelves by either the narrow or broad definition). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the automatic protection devices disclosed by Habashi to the device disclosed by Stamatoukos because doing so would help protect the nozzle surfaces of head from dust and from ink being cured on the nozzle surfaces during irradiation of the ink on the media.
Regarding claim 2, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches a curing unit that functions as claimed (Stamatoukos, fig. 1, item 6).
Regarding claim 3, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches a curing unit that functions as claimed (Stamatoukos, [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches wherein the printing heads are mobile so as to cover and uncover themselves by the automatic protection units (Habashi, see figs. 8, 15).
Regarding claim 7, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches a curing unit that functions as claimed (Stamatoukos, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches first and second automatic cleaning systems (Stamatoukos, fig. 4, item 14).
Regarding claim 12, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches wherein the protection devices are trays for protecting the printing heads (Habashi, see figs. 8, 15).
Regarding claim 13, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches wherein the protection devices are trays that are dimensioned to cover the printing heads (Habashi, see figs. 8, 15).
Regarding claim 14, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches wherein cleaning system is connected to the shelf so as to move with it (Habashi, see figs. 8, 15, Note suction holes 152 of shelves).
Regarding claim 15, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches wherein cleaning system is connected to the shelf so as to move with it at the nozzles of the printing head (Habashi, see figs. 8, 15).
Regarding claim 16, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi teaches the device of claim 15, wherein cleaning system comprises a suction nozzle to suck the nozzle surface (Habashi, fig. 15, item 152.
Regarding claims 18-20, note that capping/cleaning systems move with the shelves in the horizontal sliding direction, and the cleaning systems have suction nozzle hole 152 connected to vacuum pumps to suck ink (Habashi, [0128], [0156]-[0158]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatoukos in view of Habashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riskin (2022/0314235).
Regarding claim 8, Stamatoukos in view of Habashi. The combination does not teach an air suction and filtering unit to clear air byproduct of the plasma treatment device. Riskin teaches this (Riskin, [0029]).
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
