DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 and 9-11, in the reply filed on June 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 23, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayase et al (JP2021156844 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayase teaches an image processing device for performing a foil transfer printing on a recording medium using an ejection unit that ejects an ink for printing an image on the recording medium and an adhesive ink for transferring a foil to the recording medium [0001], the image processing device comprising:
a generation unit, configured to generate a foil transfer data representing an ejection region of the adhesive ink in a predetermined color with respect to an image data indicating an image to be printed on the recording medium ([0016]- The control unit 103 processes the background image data [Dg] related to the background image to be formed on the recording medium P, and the additional image data [Dad] related to the additional image, to make them data that can be handled by the background image forming apparatus 200 and the additional image forming apparatus 300; [0017]- The background image data [Dg] and additional image data [Dad] are data created using, for example, graphic design software (such as Adobe Illustrator), and are data input from an external device via a network interface); and
a composition unit, configured to compose the foil transfer data and the image data to generate a composite image data ([0017]- The background image data [Dg] and additional image data [Dad] are data created using, for example, graphic design software (such as Adobe Illustrator), and are data input from an external device via a network interface; [0016]- The control unit 103 processes the background image data [Dg] related to the background image to be formed on the recording medium P, and the additional image data [Dad] related to the additional image, to make them data that can be handled by the background image forming apparatus 200 and the additional image forming apparatus 300),
wherein when printing is performed on the recording medium, the adhesive ink is ejected to the ejection region of the predetermined color in the composite image data ([0023]- The background image forming apparatus 200 described above may be a general electrophotographic image forming apparatus for forming toner images, or an inkjet recording apparatus for forming ink images.).
Regarding Claim 2, Hayase further teaches forming the image by ejecting a predetermined amount of each toner color [0025] thus, the predetermined amounts may result in only a single color corresponding to the associated transfer data thus meeting the instant limitation of the foil transfer data is represented by a single color which is a predetermined color, the adhesive ink is set as a spot color, and the composition unit is configured to convert the single color in the foil transfer data into the spot color .
Regarding Claim 6, Hayase further teaches creating the background and additional image data utilizing graphic design software with external user input [0017] thus meeting the instant limitation of the foil transfer data is generated by extracting a contour of a part of an image included in the image data and representing an inside of the contour in the predetermined color.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayase et al (JP2021156844 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Shindou (JP2002328213 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claims 3-4 and 9-10, Hayase does not specify in the foil transfer data, an inside of the ejection region of the adhesive ink is represented by a predetermined pattern wherein the predetermined pattern is halftone dots, and at least one of a diameter of the halftone dots and a density of the halftone dots is capable of being arbitrarily set.
Shindou teaches an alternative foil printing device [0001] wherein the printed foil region has a halftone dot pattern [0007]-[0016] in order to prevent color-copying reproduction of the printed item [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayase to include a halftone pattern in the ejection region as taught by Shindou with reasonable expectation of success to prevent color-copying reproduction of the printed item [0004].
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Hayase further teaches the additional image data includes the necessary information to print the image as desired [0019] thus meeting the instant limitation of in the foil transfer data, a color for ejecting the ink is set in a gap in which the predetermined pattern is not formed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayase et al (JP2021156844 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Okajima (JP2018182687 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayase does not specify a mask processing unit, configured to perform a mask processing on the ejection region of the adhesive ink in the composite image data, wherein the ejection unit does not eject the ink to the ejection region of the adhesive ink subjected to the mask processing when performing printing on the recording medium.
Okajima teaches an alternative printing device (Abstract) wherein the printer determines overlapping image data between the main body data and foil transfer data (mask processing) and removes the regions where the data overlaps (the overlap is the mask which is subsequently removed) [0075]-[0089] in order to properly print the object [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hayase to include a mask processing unit wherein no ink is ejected in the masked region as taught by Okajima with reasonable expectation of success to properly print the object [0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 8/27/26
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights