DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
2. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 365(b) to European patent application EP 22153111.4, filed 25 January 2022, and of the international filing date of 24 January 2023 accorded to international application PCT/EP2023/051705 designating the United States, of which this application is the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371.
Preliminary Amendment
4. The Preliminary Amendment submitted on 07/18/2024 containing amendments to the Specification, Abstract, and the Claims are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
It is noted that the IDS statement contains the references cited in the PCT international search report of PCT/EP2023/051705, along with the Search Report and Opinion issued on April 14th, 2023.
Drawings
5. The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.81 because the application contains no drawing.
Acceptance of an application without a drawing does not preclude the examiner from requiring an illustration in the form of a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). See MPEP 608.02(II). The nature of the subject matter sought to be patented admits of illustration by a drawing, and a drawing would materially assist in the understanding of the claimed subject matter, although it is not necessary for the understanding of the subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 113, first sentence.
6. Claim 1 recites an ordered sequence of method steps - providing a reference decor sample, providing a hyperspectral reference data set, printing a copy, creating a hyperspectral data set for the printed copy, comparing the two data sets by use of an electrical control unit to determine a degree of similarity, and using the reference decor sample when printing the print motif onto the paper web when the degree of similarity lies within a predetermined range - and further recites a spatial relationship, namely that "a position of the print width of the copy corresponds to a position of the print width of the reference decor sample."
Claim 2 recites the printing of multiple copies at different colour settings and at a common position of the print width.
Claims 3, 4, 5 and 12 recite physical operations on printed copies, including impregnating, pressing on a core, splitting into multiple parts, and compiling the parts into mixed copies.
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 recite a marker and/or control marker, a recording device, and creation of the hyperspectral data set by the digital printing facility. Each of these features is of a character that is conventionally and usefully illustrated. 37 CFR 1.81(b) expressly provides that drawings may include illustrations which facilitate an understanding of the invention, for example flow sheets in cases of processes and diagrammatic views.
7. APPLICANT IS REQUIRED, under 37 CFR 1.81(c), to furnish at least one drawing. The particular form and content of the drawing are LEFT ENTIRELY TO APPLICANT'S DISCRETION, provided that the drawing complies with 37 CFR 1.84 and that it illustrates only subject matter fully supported by the disclosure as originally filed.
Purely by way of non-limiting example, and without directing applicant to any particular illustration, a flow sheet of the recited method steps, or a diagrammatic view of the digital printing facility together with the paper web, the recording device and the electrical control unit, or a diagrammatic view showing the position of the print width of the copy relative to the position of the print width of the reference decor sample, would each be acceptable. Applicant may satisfy the requirement with a single figure.
8. NO NEW MATTER may be introduced by the required drawing. 35 U.S.C. 132(a); 37 CFR 1.121(f). A drawing submitted in response to this requirement must be supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Applicant is further advised that, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.81(d), a drawing submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, and may not be used to supplement the original disclosure for the purpose of interpreting the scope of any claim.
9. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). Applicant is further required to add an appropriate brief description of the drawing to the specification under 37 CFR 1.74, and each reference character appearing in the drawing must be mentioned in the description. See MPEP 608.01(g) and 608.02(e). Once a drawing is of record, 37 CFR 1.83(a) requires that the drawing show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
10. PERIOD FOR REPLY TO THE DRAWING REQUIREMENT. No separate or shortened period is set for this requirement. The drawing required under 37 CFR 1.81(c) must be furnished within the period for reply to this Office action, that is, within THREE (3) MONTHS from the mailing date of this action, extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a) up to the six-month statutory maximum. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL NOT BE HELD IN ABEYANCE. A reply that does not furnish the required drawing, or that does not otherwise traverse this requirement on the merits, will be held to be not fully responsive under 37 CFR 1.111(b), and applicant will be so notified; failure to complete the reply within the period for reply, including any extension obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a), may result in abandonment of the application under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR 1.135. If the drawing furnished is not accepted, applicant will be notified of the required corrective action in the next Office action or by separate notice.
Claim Objections
11. Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 9 recites that the reference decor sample features at least one marker and/or at least one control marker.
Claim 13 recites at least one position marker and/or at least one control marker. A "position marker" is a species of "marker"; the broader recitation of claim 9 reads directly on the narrower recitation of claim 13, and the "control marker" alternative is identical in both claims.
Claims 9 and 13 are therefore not patentably distinct and, on the present record, are coextensive in scope.
12. When two claims in an application are duplicates, or are of such close scope that they are patentably indistinct, applicant should be required to cancel one. See MPEP 706.03(k) and 608.01(m). Applicant is required either to cancel one claim of the pair, or to amend the claims so as to recite patentably distinct subject matter.
13. These are objections and not rejections; they are nevertheless not held in abeyance and must be addressed in reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-14 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 individual grounds are set forth below. During examination, a claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear such that the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not reasonably ascertainable. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2173.02(II).
16. CLAIM 1: "providing a reference decor sample that contains a section of a digital image of an original sample of the print motif."
This recitation is indefinite. Neither the "original sample" nor the "print motif" is positively recited as being provided, obtained, generated or otherwise established by any step of the claimed method; each is introduced only as an antecedent within a definitional phrase. The reference decor sample is accordingly defined only relationally, by reference to matter that the claim never requires to exist. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether the claim requires the reference decor sample to be a proper subset of a separately existing digital image of a separately existing original sample, or whether an independently created image satisfies the limitation.
The indefiniteness is compounded by the disclosure. The specification as originally filed, in its summary discussion of the reference decor sample, states that the reference decor sample may contain the entire image of the original sample - that is, that it need not be a "section" at all. The specification therefore does not reconcile with the express claim requirement of a "section," and the metes and bounds of "section" cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
17. CLAIM 1: "using the reference decor sample when printing the print motif onto the paper web."
This step is indefinite for two independent reasons. First, the print motif is never provided, defined or generated by any step of the claim. The claim consequently does not make clear what is printed onto the paper web, nor what relationship the printed motif must bear to the reference decor sample or to the original sample.
Second, the reference decor sample is defined in the claim solely as something that "contains a section of a digital image." It is not clear how an image, or a section of an image, is "used ... when printing." The specification as filed indicates that the reference decor sample may additionally contain further information, such as colour settings and/or other printing parameters, and describes the reference decor sample as preferably containing the control information with which the digital printing facility is driven. No such control information is recited in claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed reference décor sample is (i) an image, (ii) control information or printing parameters, or (iii) a combination of both, and the scope of the "using" step varies materially depending on which reading is adopted.
18. CLAIM 1: "wherein a position of the print width of the copy corresponds to a position of the print width of the reference decor sample."
This limitation, which is the sole structural or spatial limitation distinguishing claim 1 from the general reference-qualification loop otherwise recited, is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for, and no ascertainable meaning of, a "print width of the reference décor sample." The claim recites a single printing operation, namely the printing of a copy of the reference decor sample. The reference décor sample itself is defined as image data, not as a printed article and not as data having a defined width coordinate. Image data as such has no print width. One of ordinary skill would therefore be unable to determine what spatial relationship the "corresponds to" clause requires, or against what datum correspondence is to be measured.
Applicant may wish to consider whether the limitation can be clarified, consistent with the disclosure and without the introduction of new matter, by reciting that the section has a position within the digital image that is identified by specifying a length position and a width position, wherein the width position constitutes a position of print width. Applicant is advised, however, that such a clarification would not by itself render claim 1 allowable over the prior art applied in the rejection below.
19. CLAIM 1: ANTECEDENT BASIS FOR "the print width."
Claim 1 recites "the print width" and "a position of the print width" using the definite article, without any antecedent recitation of a print width, of a printing width of the digital printing facility, or of a width of the paper web. Claims 2, 7, 8 and 14 likewise recite "the print width" or "the position of the print width" without proper antecedent basis in claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
20. CLAIM 2:
Claim 2 recites "a predetermined range." Claim 1 has already recited "a predetermined range." It cannot be determined whether the range of claim 2 is the same range as that of claim 1 or a different range. If the same range is intended, amendment to "the predetermined range" is suggested.
Claim 2 further recites that the colour settings are "selected by the electrical control unit," while also reciting that the multiple copies are printed "with different colour settings." It is unclear whether the control unit selects the different colour settings for the printing of the copies, selects among the printed copies, or both.
21. CLAIM 3:
The recitation directed to a printed reference copy "which is impregnated together with a printed copy and pressed on a core" is indefinite. It cannot be determined whether "a printed copy" refers to the copy already recited in claim 1 or to a further and different copy. It is further unclear whether the impregnating and the pressing are affirmative method steps required by the claim, or whether they merely characterize the condition of the reference copy that is provided. The recited "core" also lacks any recited relationship to the paper web, to the print motif, or to any other element of the claim.
22. CLAIM 5:
Claim 5 recites that the provision of the reference decor sample comprises a sequence of steps culminating in the creation of the reference décor sample from a selected copy, where the selected copy is a physical copy that has been impregnated and pressed on a core. Claim 1, by contrast, requires that the reference decor sample contain a section of a digital image of an original sample of the print motif. The relationship between these two definitions is unclear and, on the present wording, they appear inconsistent: a reference decor sample created "from" an impregnated and pressed physical laminate is not evidently the same thing as image data containing a section of a digital image. Applicant should clarify whether claim 5 further limits the reference decor sample of claim 1 or instead redefines it. Claim 5 additionally introduces an "object" that the print motif "should imitate," alongside the "original sample" of claim 1, without stating the relationship between the object and the original sample.
23. CLAIM 8:
Claim 8 recites "the copies of the reference decor sample." This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites the printing of "a copy" of the reference decor sample, in the singular, and claim 8 does not depend from claim 2, which is the only claim reciting multiple copies of the reference decor sample.
24. CLAIM 11:
Claim 11 recites that "the copy with a greatest degree of similarity is used when printing the paper web." This is indefinite because a printed physical copy cannot itself be used when printing. It cannot be determined whether applicant intends that the colour settings associated with the copy having the greatest degree of similarity are used, that the image data underlying that copy is used, or something else. The phrase "comparison copies" additionally lacks a stated relationship to the "copy" of claim 1 and to the "multiple copies" of claim 2.
25. CLAIMS 4 AND 12:
Claim 4 recites that the reference copy and the printed copy are each split into multiple parts and that the parts are compiled to create mixed copies. It cannot be determined from the claim (i) whether the splitting occurs before or after the impregnating and pressing recited in claim 3, (ii) what structural or informational content a "mixed copy" must have, (iii) how many mixed copies are created, or (iv) whether the mixed copies are thereafter used in the comparing step of claim 1 or in the selecting step of any other claim. Claim 12 recites splitting into three parts and inherits the same uncertainties. The term "mixed copies" is not defined in the claim and its scope is not reasonably certain on the present record.
26. REMAINING DEPENDENT CLAIMS.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1, or from a claim depending from claim 1, and none of them cures the deficiencies set forth above.
27. EXAMINER'S NOTE ON CLARIFICATION:
The foregoing grounds are directed to claim clarity only. Nothing should be read as a finding that the specification fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a); no rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is made in this action.
Status of Claims
28. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-11 were amended, and Claims 12-14 were newly added in the 07/18/2024 Preliminary Amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
32. 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.
33. Claims 1, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Noffke et al. (US 2010/0128318 A1).
Note that the citation(s) to AAPA are from the Published Application US 2025/0150547.
Regarding Claim 1:
AAPA discloses a method for printing a paper web with a print motif by use of a digital printing facility (AAPA: “Print motifs are printed on paper webs for a wide variety of reasons. For example, they are used to produce panels or boards that can be used, for example, as floor,
wall or ceiling coverings or furniture boards.”; ¶[0008]), wherein the method comprises:
providing a reference decor sample that contains a section of a digital image of an original sample of the print motif (AAPA: “it is known from the prior art to store a reference decor sample. It contains a section of a digital image of an original sample of a print motif as well as further information used, for example, to control the digital printing facility.” ¶[0008]),
providing a hyperspectral reference data set for the reference decor sample (AAPA: “In addition, a hyperspectral reference data set for the reference decor sample is provided.” ¶[0009]) ,
printing a copy of the reference decor sample (AAPA: “To generate the hyperspectral reference data set, the reference decor sample was first used to print a copy.” ¶[0009]),
creating a hyperspectral data set for the printed copy (AAPA: “To generate the hyperspectral reference data set, the reference decor sample was first used to print a copy.” ¶[0009]),
comparing the created hyperspectral data set with the provided hyperspectral reference data set by use of an electrical control unit (AAPA: “The hyperspectral data set created in this manner is now compared with the hyperspectral data set provided by means of an electrical control unit, preferably an electronic data processing device. Various methods and approaches to this are known from the prior art. What is important is that a degree of similarity is determined.” ¶[0014]),
wherein a degree of similarity is determined (AAPA: “a degree of similarity is determined” ¶[0014]), and
using the reference decor sample when printing the print motif onto the paper web when the degree of similarity lies within a predetermined range (AAPA: “If the degree of similarity determined lies within the predetermined range, i.e. the similarity between the hyperspectral data set and the hyperspectrial reference data set is sufficiently large, the reference decor sample is used to print onto the paper web and production can begin.” ¶[0015]),
AAPA further discloses that “print heads may print differently or the uniformity of the print may not be optimized across the print width of the digital printing system. To put it more simply, this means that printed samples of the reference decor sample may even differ when the color settings are the same, simply because they were printed at different positions of the print width of the digital printing facility.”; however
AAPA does not disclose wherein a position of the print width of the copy corresponds to a position of the print width of the reference decor sample.
Noffke discloses wherein a position of the print width of the copy corresponds to a position of the print width of the reference decor sample.
Noffke processes a printed image on a moving web 12 in an industrial printing installation and prints color bars along an edge portion of that web for color monitoring (¶¶ [0006], [0011]). Its positioning unit 34 moves the image processing apparatus laterally across the web, that is, perpendicular to web travel, so that the printed image is recorded at selected positions across the web width (¶ [0008]), and its spatial channel measures the position on the web being measured so that the spectral channel acquires an image of the desired region, the same position on the web at the same time (¶¶ [0016], [0023]; abstract). Noffke resolves color-bar patches across the web width to a lateral resolution of about 0.0156 inch (¶ [0024]).
AAPA in view of Noffke are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing, e.g.; web-fed printing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry AAPA’s well known hyperspectral reference-versus-actual comparison in a continuous web production and hold the compared copy at the same position across the print width as the reference decor sample as taught by Noffke. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to remove cross-web print variation from the similarity determination as disclosed by Noffke.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine AAPA with Noffke to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of AAPA in view of Noffke further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the reference decor sample features at least one marker and/or at least one control marker (AAPA: “In order to achieve reproducibility and color fidelity, it is known from the prior art to store a reference decor sample. It contains a section of a digital image of an original sample of a print motif as well as further information used, for example, to control the digital printing facility. Said information may contain, for example, color settings, application quantities and/or other parameters of the digital printing facility. In the present case, the reference decor sample preferably contains the control file with which the digital printing facility is controlled.” [0008]; “For example, a hyperspectral measuring device, in particular a hyperspectral surface measuring device, is used manually or automatically. The measurement data of this measuring device are hyperspectral measurement data from which lab/LCH values and the corresponding color spaces can be calculated. As a result, a print motif was printed onto a paper web and subsequently subjected to a quality check.” ¶¶[0009-0010]).
Regarding Claim 10:
The proposed combination of AAPA in view of Noffke further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the creation of the hyperspectral data set on the printed copy is done by a recording device (AAPA: “a hyperspectral reference data set for the reference decor sample is provided. To generate the hyperspectral reference data set, the reference decor sample was first used to print a copy. It was then captured hyperspectrally. For example, a hyperspectral measuring device, in particular a hyperspectral surface measuring device, is used manually or automatically. The measurement data of this measuring device are hyperspectral measurement data from which lab/LCH values and the corresponding color spaces can be calculated.” ¶[0009]; Claim interpretation wherein a hyperspectral surface measuring device is a recording device.).
Regarding Claim 13:
The proposed combination of AAPA in view of Noffke further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the reference decor sample features at least one position marker and/or at least one control marker (AAPA: “In order to achieve reproducibility and color fidelity, it is known from the prior art to store a reference decor sample. It contains a section of a digital image of an original sample of a print motif as well as further information used, for example, to control the digital printing facility. Said information may contain, for example, color settings, application quantities and/or other parameters of the digital printing facility. In the present case, the reference decor sample preferably contains the control file with which the digital printing facility is controlled.” [0008]; “For example, a hyperspectral measuring device, in particular a hyperspectral surface measuring device, is used manually or automatically. The measurement data of this measuring device are hyperspectral measurement data from which lab/LCH values and the corresponding color spaces can be calculated. As a result, a print motif was printed onto a paper web and subsequently subjected to a quality check.” ¶¶[0009-0010]).
Regarding Claim 14:
The proposed combination of AAPA in view of Noffke further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the creation of the hyperspectral data set on the printed copy is done by the digital printing facility (AAPA: “The reference decor sample can therefore be used to print the print motif onto the paper web by means of the digital printing facility…a copy of the stored reference decor sample is printed onto the paper web. Whereas the reference decor sample is a digital element, the copy of the reference decor sample is a part of the printed paper web. Using the reference decor sample when printing onto the paper web ensures that the same print parameters are used that were used to generate the paper web assessed as good. A hyperspectral data set of the printed copy is subsequently created.”¶¶[0012-0013]).
Allowable Subject Matter
34. Claims 2-8, and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
35. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 1, wherein, if the degree of similarity is not within a predetermined range, multiple copies of the reference decor sample are printed with different color settings, wherein at least some of the copies are printed at a same position of the print width, and the color settings are selected by the electrical control unit.
Regarding Claim 3:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 1, wherein, in addition to the reference decor sample, a printed reference copy of the reference decor sample is provided, which is impregnated together with a printed copy and pressed on a core.
Regarding Claim 4:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 3, wherein the reference copy and the printed copy are each split into multiple parts prior to pressing and compiled to create mixed copies.
Regarding Claim 5:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 1, wherein the provision of the reference decor sample comprises: generating a digital image of an object that the print motif should imitate, creating a color sample decor that contains a section of the image of the object, printing a plurality of copies of the color sample decor with different color settings, impregnating and pressing the copies of the color sample decor on a core, comparing the impregnated and pressed copies with the object, and selecting an impregnated and pressed copy on a basis of the comparison and creating the reference decor sample from the selected copy.
Regarding Claim 6:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 5, wherein in order to compare the impregnated and pressed copies with the object, digital images are generated, which are compared to each other.
Regarding Claim 7:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 5, wherein the copies of the color sample decors are printed at a same position of the print width of the digital printing facility.
Regarding Claim 8:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 7, wherein a position of the print width of the copies of the color sample decors corresponds to a position of the print width of the copies of the reference decor sample.
Regarding Claim 11:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 1, wherein, in addition to the copy of the reference decor sample, comparison copies are printed at different color settings, wherein the copy with a greatest degree of similarity is used when printing the paper web.
Regarding Claim 12:
None of the prior art cited disclose or suggest in the claimed combinations the method according to claim 3, wherein the reference copy and the printed copy are each split into three parts prior to pressing and compiled to create mixed copies.
Conclusion
36. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kalwa et al. (US 10,063,747) discloses a method for printing wood material boards. The method includes: by a digital printing process, measuring color values of the wood material boards from at least one first batch and forwarding the color values to a computer program; measuring color values of the wood material boards from at least one further batch and forwarding the color values to the computer program; processing the color values of the wood material boards from the at least one further batch in the computer program and adapting the color values of the digital print; and printing at least one side of the wood material boards by means of digital printing technology, forming a decorative layer in such a way that no color deviations occur between the printed decorations of the wood material boards.
Dicke et al. (WO 2021/165539 A1) describes provides a method and an apparatus for adopting analogue decor templates in decor printing, comprising the similarity comparison between at least one of (1) to n hyperspectral digital reference images of the analogue decor template and at least one of (1) to n hyperspectral digital actual images of a substrate with decor, wherein a decor-specific profile target is adjusted such that the digital template of the analogue decor template can be output on a substrate by way of an output medium in such a way that the colour deviation between at least one of (1) to n reference images of the analogue decor template and at least one of (1) to n actual images of the substrate with decor is below a specified target value.
PRIOR-ART STATUS OF DICKE
WO 2021/165539 A1 published 26 August 2021, more than four months before the 25 January 2022 earliest effective filing date of the instant application, and therefore qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). If applicant relies on an exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) as to the Dicke disclosure, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) will be required.
37. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights