DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 9-11 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims are directed to a patentably distinct method with a materially different mode of operation from that originally presented according to claims 1-8. That is, the newly presented invention according to claims 9-11 requires a step of acquiring data for a number of zones during s succession of scans, which is not a step that is required by the originally presented invention according to claims 1-8.
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 Accordingly, claims 9-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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 add the distinct language of claim 9 into claim 1 for further examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the corresponding nodal point” and “each image point” lack antecedent basis. 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 1 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. The claim recites “processing a modified portion of the image, the modified portion being obtained by moving each image point, and a portion of the contour.” However, “each image point” would seem to refer to the entire image, and thus to claim that only a modified portion of the image is being processed when every image point in the image is being moved would seem to contradict itself. That is, it would seem that for a portion of the image to be modified, only a portion of the image points and a portion of the contour would be moved.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimori (5,014,223) in view of Darrow et al. (2018/0229497).
Regarding claim 1, Tanimori teaches a method for digital printing on a sheet having an edge, comprising the following steps:
providing a main reference system (cols. 7-8, lines 66-14);
providing an image (fig. 6, item 21) having a contour (fig. 6, note contour), positioned in a pre-established manner relative to said main reference system (see fig. 6);
defining a plurality of nodal points (fig. 6, points Pa – Pg) relative to said a main reference system (see fig. 6);
associating with each nodal point a corresponding image point (fig. 6, points P) of the image, by means of a pre-established calculation method (col. 6, lines 5-27, note that the nodal points are determined solely based on the apices of the polygon, and those nodal points are then associated with image data based on calculations done by the processor);
processing a modified portion (col. 6, lines 29-55, concave portion Pe) of the image, the modified portion (Im) being obtained by moving each image point, and a portion of the contour adjacent to that image point, in a pre-established position with respect to the corresponding nodal point (figs. 6-8, see fig. 6, lines 1-67, note that image point Pe moves to the position E1 shown and a new image point E2 is created so as to create line V5 with image point E1 so as to modify the contour adjacent the image point).
Tanimori does not teach specifics of the operation of the printer. Darrow teaches
translating the sheet in advancement along an advancement direction on an advancement plane; during the advancement of the sheet: performing a succession of scans of consecutive zones of the sheet (Darrow, see figs. 1, 2). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a printer of the type disclosed by Darrow to employ the graphics rendering technique disclosed by Tanimori because doing so would amount to combining a prior art technique with a prior art device to obtain predictable results.
Upon combination of the references, the resultant device would print the modified portion on the sheet .
Regarding claim 2, Tanimori in view of Darrow teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least some of the nodal points of the plurality of nodal points are points of the edge of the sheet, and wherein the respective image points are points of the contour of the image (Tanimori, see fig. 6, Note also that the claimed edge can be defined broadly to include whole portions of the sheet.).
Regarding claim 3, Tanimori in view of Darrow teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein each image point is defined as an intersection between the contour of the image and the perpendicular to the edge passing through the nodal point (Tanimori, see fig. 6, Note that the claimed perpendiculars can be drawn to meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Tanimori in view of Darrow teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the modified portions are printed in succession on the sheet (Tanimori, note that this can mean almost anything. Any two modified portions printed on the sheet can meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Tanimori in view of Darrow teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each modified portion of the image is printed on the sheet during processing of one or more successive modified portions of the image (Tanimori, note that this can mean almost anything. Any two modified portions printed on the sheet can meet the limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Tanimori in view of Darrow teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said portion of the contour adjacent to an image point is the portion of the contour comprised between the image point and a subsequent image point (Tanimori, see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Tanimori in view of Darrow teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the nodal points of the edge of the sheet are defined by approximating the edge with a polygonal line according to a pre-established approximation formula, and wherein the nodal points are vertices of said polygonal line (Tanimori, see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Tanimori in view of Darrow teaches a machine for digital printing on a shaped sheet, comprising:
an advancement plane, movable in advancement along a longitudinal direction by means of digitally controlled motor means; an acquisition station, configured to acquire a succession of images of the sheet in advancement on the advancement plane; a digital printer, located downstream of the acquisition station; characterised in that it comprises a command module connected to the motor means of the advancement plane, to the acquisition station and to the digital printer, and which is configured to implement the method according to claim 1 (Darrow, see figs. 1, 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the process, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed method 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