DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 22 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the invention requires measuring a print decoration after a printing and before a further coating without a calibration model, and this is patentably distinct subcombination of the originally presented invention, which does not require those steps.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant is welcome to incorporate the limitations contained in claim 22 and not presently contained in claim 1 into claim 1 for further examination. If this is done, note that the language “the at least one print decoration is measured” could be considered infinite because the decoration itself is not being measured but rather the NIR spectrum of the decoration. Further, note that “wherein no calibration model is created” could mean any number of things.
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) 1-8, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denk et al. (2018/0080867) in view of Hashimoto et al. (2020/0053229).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 21, Denk teaches a method for determining the color deviation of at least one print decoration applied to at least one carrier material from a print template using only NIR spectroscopy, comprising the steps of:
recording of at least one NIR spectrum of several reference samples with the print template of the at least one print decoration in a wavelength range of 1200 nm to 1700 nm,
applying the at least one print decoration to the at least one carrier material by means of printing,
recording at least one NIR spectrum of the carrier material printed with the at least one print decoration using in a wavelength range of 1200 nm to 1700 nm, and
determining the color deviation of the at least one print decoration by comparing with the at least one NIR spectrum recorded for the print template,
wherein an ink used for printing is a water-soluble CYMK ink (Denk, [0020], [0038], [0062]-[0063], [0102], Note that abrasion values are calculated according to the NIR spectrum, and the spectra have corresponding colors. Thus, according to [0038], if clusters having similar coloring are formed and used for analysis, calibration of color deviations from those clusters is ascertained according to the NIR spectrum. Note that the NIR spectrums are recorded into memory once obtained by the correlation with abrasion values).
Denk does not expressly teach wherein the NIR spectrum is recorded by an NIR measuring head. Hashimoto teaches this (Hashimoto, [0146]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an NIR measuring head to acquire the NIR spectra of the printed portions, as disclosed by Hashimoto, as opposed to deriving the spectra from the abrasion values, as disclosed by Denk, because doing so would amount to applying a known spectrum measuring technique to a known device to obtain predictable results. In other words, if just the NIR spectra were desired and not the abrasion values, to use an NIR measuring head would be a more efficient and practical method for obtaining such values.
Regarding claim 2, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein spectral data from the entire recorded spectral range are used to determine the color deviation (Denk, [0038], Note that “an entire recorded spectral range” can mean any number of things. That is, any range or subrange of any recorded spectrum can be selected to meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein spectral data from the NIR spectral range between 1350 nm and 1600 nm are used to determine the color deviation (Denk, [0102]).
Regarding claim 4, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determination of the color deviation is carried out continuously and online or offline (Denk, Note that the determination is carried out continuously).
Regarding claim 5, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one carrier material comprises at least one paper layer (Denk, [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one carrier material is a board made of a wood material, made of plastic, a wood material-plastic mixture, a composite material, a cement fibreboard, gypsum fibreboard, a WPC board (Wood Plastic Composites), or an SPC board (Stone Plastic Composites) (Denk, [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the printed decoration is applied to the at least one carrier material by gravure printing processes or digital printing processes (Denk, [0063]).
Regarding claim 18, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the at least one paper layer is at least one base paper or at least one pre-treated, impregnated paper (Denk, [0005]).
Regarding claim 19, Denk in view of Hashimoto teaches the method according to claim 6 wherein the board made of the wood material is a chipboard, medium-density fibreboard (MDF), high-density fibreboard (HDF), oriented strand board (OSB) or plywood board (Denk, [0002]-[0003]).
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
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 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
