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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of EP Application No. 23189448.6 has NOT been received on as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 July 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 29 July 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the main scanning direction" in Lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected because it inherits the deficiencies of Claim 7.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokai (US PGPub 2023/0415496 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Tokai discloses a method for applying an image onto a recording medium using a scanning printer (¶0022; Abstract), the scanning printer comprising:
at least one scanning print unit (¶0022; carriage 79, head 80) configured to, in a printing operation, move in reciprocation in a scanning direction (¶0022; Fig. 1); and
a curing unit, the curing unit being configured to, in operation, provide a beam of radiation for irradiating ink (¶0048; light emission unit 70, Fig. 7; ¶0020, to cure the ink)
wherein the method comprising comprises the steps of:
applying a predetermined pattern of a radiation-curable ink onto the recording medium (¶0081-0083; 0079); and
irradiating the ink applied onto the recording medium using the curing unit (¶0079-0083), wherein the output of the curing unit is controlled based on a time interval between a first passage of the print unit and a second passage of the print unit (¶0079-0091; ¶0101), wherein the output is controlled according to a predetermined output profile (¶0079-0091; 0101), and
wherein during a scanning movement, the output is varied from a non-zero minimum output to a maximum output and wherein the output is higher if the time interval is shorter and the output is lower if the time interval is longer (¶0079-0091; ¶0101, the output intensity is controlled based on the amount of ink that the printing apparatus 1 discharges to the medium M, the size of the printing area PA of the medium M, the size of the medium M, the color of ink, and the like; and in association with the number of times of printing pass per unit area of the medium M; and the movement velocity of the carriage 69 at the time of printing; 0111-0112, sets emission intensity higher or lower based on number of printing passes).
Although Tokai does not explicitly disclose a higher output if time interval is shorter and a lower output if time interval is longer, the feature of controlling the intensity higher or lower based on time interval is disclosed (¶0079-0091; ¶0101). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the intensities as claimed, in order to control to adjust the flatness of the ink surface, as taught by Tokai (¶0003).
With regard to Claim 3, Tokai further discloses wherein the curing unit is configured to, in operation, provide a scanning beam of radiation (¶0020, ultraviolet light emitted toward the medium, scanned the carriage, ¶0022).
With regard to Claim 4, Tokai further discloses wherein at least part of the curing unit being is configured to, in a printing operation, move in reciprocation in a scanning direction (¶0022).
With regard to Claim 6, Tokai further discloses wherein the curing unit is mounted on a print head carriage (¶0022), the print head carriage being configured to carry the at least one scanning print unit (¶0022).
With regard to Claim 11, Tokai discloses a scanning printer (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶0022) comprising: at least one scanning print unit configured to, in a printing operation, move in reciprocation in a scanning direction (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶0022); a curing unit, the curing unit being configured to, in operation, provide a beam of radiation for irradiating the ink (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶0022; 0083); a medium support for supporting a recording medium (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶0022); and a control unit configured to control the printer to perform the method according to claim 1 (See Claim 1 above).
With regard to Claim 12, Tokai further discloses a software product (¶0166) comprising program code on a non-transitory machine-readable medium (¶0166), wherein the program code, when loaded into a controller of a scanning printer with at least one scanning print unit (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶0022), a medium support (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶0022) and a curing unit (Fig. 1; Abstract; ¶0022), causes the controller to perform the method according to claim 1 (See Claim 1 above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokai, in view of Rietbergen et al. (US PGPub 2019/0134995 A1), hereinafter Rietbergen.
With regard to Claim 2, Tokai does not explicitly disclose wherein the radiation-curable ink is a radiation-curable phase change ink.
The secondary reference of Rietbergen discloses wherein the radiation-curable ink is a radiation-curable phase change ink (¶0052, 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the radiation-curable phase change ink of Rietbergen, with the method of Tokai, in order to stabilize the droplets applied onto the recording medium before they are cured, as taught by Rietbergen (¶0055).
Claims 5, 7, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokai, in view of Ohara et al. (US PGPub 2017/0036459 A1), hereinafter Ohara.
With regard to Claim 5, Tokai does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink.
The secondary reference of Ohara discloses wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink (Figs. 1-2; ¶0030-0035) and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink (Figs. 1-2; ¶0034-0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second irradiating step of Ohara, with the method of Tokai, in order to suppress image quality deterioration being caused, as taught by Ohara (¶0008).
With regard to Claim 7, Tokai does not explicitly disclose wherein the scanning curing unit comprises two sources of radiation, wherein a first source of radiation is positioned downstream of the least at least one scanning print unit, in the main scanning direction, and the second source of radiation is positioned upstream of the least at least one scanning print unit, in the main scanning direction.
The secondary reference of Ohara discloses wherein the scanning curing unit comprises two sources of radiation (Fig. 2B; irradiation section 9a, 9b), wherein a first source of radiation is positioned downstream of the least at least one scanning print unit (Fig. 2B; irradiation section 9a, 9b; ¶0022), in the main scanning direction (Figs. 2a-b), and the second source of radiation is positioned upstream of the least at least one scanning print unit, in the main scanning direction (Fig. 2B; irradiation section 9a, 9b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the two sources of radiation of Ohara, with the method of Tokai, in order to suppress image quality deterioration being caused, as taught by Ohara (¶0008)
With regard to Claim 9, Tokai does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing unit comprises a page-wide radiation emitting unit, wherein the page-wide radiation emitting unit extends in a first direction, the first direction being substantially perpendicular to a direction of relative recording medium transport, the page wide curing array comprising a number of individually controllable units, the individually controllable units being adjacent to one another in the first direction, the individually controllable units being configured to in operation emit radiation onto an area of the recording medium.
The secondary reference of Ohara discloses wherein the curing unit comprises a page-wide radiation emitting unit (Fig. 1; curing irradiation section 10; ¶0019), wherein the page-wide radiation emitting unit extends in a first direction (Fig. 1; curing irradiation section 10; ¶0019), the first direction being substantially perpendicular to a direction of relative recording medium transport (Fig. 1; curing irradiation section 10; ¶0019), the page wide curing array comprising a number of individually controllable units (¶0010, LED light source), the individually controllable units being adjacent to one another in the first direction, the individually controllable units being configured to in operation emit radiation onto an area of the recording medium (Fig. 2A; ¶0034-0035).
Although, Ohara discloses the curing unit being an LED, Ohara does not explicitly disclose individually controllable units being adjacent to one another in the first direction. Tokai discloses an LED having individually controllable units being adjacent to one another in the first direction (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second irradiating step of Ohara, with the method of Tokai, in order to suppress image quality deterioration being caused, as taught by Ohara (¶0008).
With regard to Claim 14, Tokai does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink.
The secondary reference of Ohara discloses wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink (¶0038; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the irradiating steps of Ohara, with the method of Tokai, in order to suppress image quality deterioration being caused, as taught by Ohara (¶0008).
With regard to Claim 15, Tokai does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink.
The secondary reference of Ohara discloses wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink (¶0038; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the irradiating steps of Ohara, with the method of Tokai, in order to suppress image quality deterioration being caused, as taught by Ohara (¶0008).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokai, in view of Ohara, and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (US PGPub 2015/023189295 A1), hereinafter Mochizuki.
With regard to Claim 8, Tokai-Ohara does not explicitly disclose wherein the first source of radiation and the second source of radiation are operated alternately.
The tertiary reference of Mochizuki discloses wherein the first source of radiation and the second source of radiation are operated alternately (¶0075-0078; 0066-0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the alternate operation of Mochizuki, with the combination of Tokai-Ohara, in order to record an image having favorable color reproductivity and granularity in a halftone region without gloss unevenness, as taught by Mochizuki (¶0011).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokai, in view of Kachi (US PGPub 2012/0281049 A1).
With regard to Claim 10, Tokai does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing unit further comprises a mirror for reflecting the radiation emitted onto the recording medium.
The secondary reference of Kachi discloses wherein the curing unit further comprises a mirror for reflecting the radiation emitted onto the recording medium (¶0193-0196, mirrors 432; Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the mirror of Kachi, with the method of Tokai, in order to reflect and scatter the direct incident light, as taught by Kachi (¶0193).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokai, in view of Rietbergen (US PGPub 2019/0134995 A1).
With regard to Claim 13, Tokai-Rietbergen does not explicitly disclose wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink.
The tertiary reference of Ohara discloses wherein the curing unit is configured to partially cure the ink and the method further comprises a second irradiating step for further curing the ink (¶0038; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the irradiating steps of Ohara, with the combination of Tokai-Rietbergen, in order to suppress image quality deterioration being caused, as taught by Ohara (¶0008).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853