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, 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatoukos et al. (2015/0030823) in view of Mueller et al. (9,931,848)).
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. Mueller teaches this (Mueller, see figs. 1-3, Note automatic protection devices 4 covering nozzles of first and second heads 90 at resting positions shown in Figure 3 and not at the printing positions shown in Figure 1. 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, Mueller’s capping elements 4 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 Mueller 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 Mueller teaches a curing unit that functions as claimed (Stamatoukos, fig. 1, item 6).
Regarding claim 3, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches a curing unit that functions as claimed (Stamatoukos, [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches wherein the printing heads are mobile so as to cover and uncover themselves by the automatic protection units (Mueller, see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches a curing unit that functions as claimed (Stamatoukos, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches first and second automatic cleaning systems (Stamatoukos, fig. 4, item 14).
Regarding claim 10, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches wherein wherein the automatic protection devices comprise a shelf movable relative to the printing heads (Mueller, see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches a slide means on which the shelves can rotate to cover the heads (Mueller, see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches wherein the protection devices are trays for protecting the printing heads (Mueller, see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches wherein the protection devices are trays that are dimensioned to cover the printing heads (Mueller, see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches wherein cleaning system is connected to the shelf so as to move with it (Mueller, see figs. 1-4, Note fluid surface 7 in each of the capping units 4).
Regarding claim 15, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches wherein cleaning system is connected to the shelf so as to move with it at the nozzles of the printing head (Mueller, see fig. 4).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatoukos in view of Mueller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riskin (2022/0314235).
Regarding claim 8, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller. 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]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamatoukos in view of Mueller as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (2013/0100199).
Regarding claim 16, Stamatoukos in view of Mueller teaches the device of claim 15. The combination does not teach wherein cleaning system comprises a suction nozzle to suck the nozzle surface. Suzuki teaches this (Suzuki, [0046], see fig. 8, Note suction nozzles 111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add the suction nozzles disclosed by Suzuki to the device disclosed by Stamatoukos in view of Mueller because doing so would allow for more thorough cleaning of the nozzle surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the structure of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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