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) 1-8, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denk et al. (2018/0080867).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 21, Wang 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 using at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range of 1200 nm to 1700 nm,
applying the at least one printed 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 print decoration using the at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range of 1200 nm to 1700 nm, and
determining the color deviation of the print decor 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).
Regarding claim 2, Denk 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Denk.
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
Prosecution Insights