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 .
Drawings
The drawings received on 30 July 2024 are accepted.
Specification
The 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US 2021/0055709) in view of Kyoso et al. (US 20170066268).
With respect to claim 1, Rao discloses a method to prime and clear inkjet nozzles on an inkjet printing device for cylindrical surfaces, comprising:
a. loading (paragraph 0072) a plurality of cylindrical objects (Fig. 8B, array of element 620) to a printing rack (Fig. 8B, element 600),
b. mounting (paragraph 0072) the printing rack (Fig. 3, element 600) onto a printing platform (Fig. 3, element 530),
c. instructing (paragraph 0024) the inkjet printing device (Fig. 3, element 400) to print actual text or an image (paragraph 0024),
d. repeating (paragraph 0024) the printing process described in (c) on each successive row until the print is complete (paragraph 0024),
e. retrieving (paragraph 0024) the printing rack from the printing platform to allow a person to retrieve the printed cylindrical objects (paragraph 0024).
However, Rao fails to disclose instructing the inkjet printing device to print a predetermined pattern at the beginning of every row before printing the actual text or image.
Kyoso discloses instructing an inkjet printing device (Fig. 1, element 10) to print a predetermined pattern (Fig. 7, element 220) at the beginning of every row (paragraph 0091, i.e. width) before printing (paragraph 0091, i.e. upstream side) the actual text or image (Fig. 7, element 222; paragraph 0091).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the predetermined pattern step disclosed by Kyoso in the printing device of Rao. The motivation for doing so would have been “to provide an image recording apparatus that efficiently detects a defective recording element causing image defects in a plurality of recording heads and a method of detecting the defective recording element” (paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 2, Rao in view of Kyoso as applied to claim 1 above, disclose where after mounting (Rao at paragraph 0072) the printing rack (Rao at Fig. 3, element 600) onto a printing platform (Rao at Fig. 3, element 530) described in step (b) and prior to engaging in a first printing process (Rao at paragraph 0024) as described in step (c), the cylindrical objects (Rao at Fig. 8B, array of element 620) are first moved underneath a UV-light source unit (Rao at Fig. 4B, element 412) to preheat the surfaces of the cylindrical objects prior to the first printing process (Rao at paragraphs 0024, 0072).
With respect to claim 3, Rao in view of Kyoso as applied to claim 1 above, disclose the predetermined pattern is a solid bar (Kyoso at Fig. 7, i.e. shape of element 220; paragraph 0091) that is perpendicular to the printing direction (Kyoso at Fig. 7, i.e. Transport Direction) of the inkjet nozzles (Rao at Fig. 4B, element 431).
With respect to claim 4, Rao in view of Kyoso as applied to claim 3 above, disclose the width of the solid bar (Kyoso at Fig. 7, element 220) is determined (Kyoso at Fig. 6, element 200) through analyzing the print image results over time (Kyoso at paragraphs 0094-0098).
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Geoffrey Mruk whose telephone number is (571)272-2810. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 03/10/2026