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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Also, Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Ramesh does not disclose the claimed "electrostatic charge generator positioned apart from the printhead in the process direction and configured to direct electrostatic charge toward the media being moved by the media transport" (emphasis added), as set forth in amended independent claim 1 and the related limitations of independent claim 11”, please note that Fig. 8 and paragraph 0039 teach electrode 804, which is positioned apart from the printhead in the process direction and configured to direct electrostatic charge toward the media being moved by the media transport, meeting the claim as written.
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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the printhead" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please note that the rest of the claim recites “at least one printhead”, and it is not clear if ‘the printhead’ refers to one in particular or any of the ‘at least one printhead’. Claims 2-6 are rejected the same way since they depend on claim 1 and contain all of its limitations.
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 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramesh et al. (US 2023/0234352 – hereinafter Ramesh.)
Regarding claim 1,
Ramesh discloses an inkjet printer [10’ in fig. 1] comprising:
a media transport [52 in fig. 1] configured to move media [sheet S in fig. 1] through the inkjet printer in a process direction [paragraph 0035]; and
at least one printhead [34A/34B/34C/34D in fig. 1] positioned opposite the media transport [as seen in fig. 1], the at least one printhead being configured to eject drops of ink onto the media being moved by the media transport [paragraph 0038];
an electrostatic charge generator [804 in fig. 8] positioned apart from the printhead in the process direction and configured to direct electrostatic charge toward the media being moved by the media transport [paragraph 0039] to improve an evaporation rate in material applied to the media being moved by the media transport [paragraph 0035 recites “The electric fields generated by the electrodes reduce the initial contact angle of the ink drops on the media 704 to improve the wetting of the ink on the media”; by improving the wetting of the ink, the ink spreads more evenly and thinly across the surface of the media, increasing the surface area exposed to air and promoting faster evaporation.]
Regarding claim 2,
Ramesh further discloses the inkjet printer further comprising:
an applicator configured to apply the material to the media being moved by the media transport before the media is printed [paragraphs 0004 and 0032 teaches that printing on media that has been coated beforehand is known in the art]; and
the electrostatic charge generator being positioned to direct the electrostatic charge toward the media being moved by the media transport after the applicator has applied the material to the media [as seen in fig. 8] and before the material has dried [see fig. 1, the dryer is downstream from the electrostatic charge generator.]
Regarding claim 3,
Ramesh further discloses the inkjet printer further comprising:
a dryer [30 in fig. 1] configured to direct heat toward the media as the media transport moves the media through the dryer [paragraph 0025]; and
the electrostatic charge generator being positioned between the printhead [34A] and the dryer [as seen in fig. 1, as applied to the fig. 8, in which the electrode is between two printheads] and configured to direct the electrostatic charge toward the media being moved by the media transport after the at least one printhead has ejected drops of ink onto the media being moved by the media transport [as seen in figs. 1 and 7-8.]
Regarding claim 4,
Ramesh further discloses wherein the electrostatic charge generator is one of a DC scorotron and an AC discorotron [paragraph 0039.]
Regarding claim 5,
Ramesh further discloses the inkjet printer further comprising:
an electric field generator [infrared heater] positioned within the dryer to direct an electric field perpendicular to the media passing through the dryer [paragraph 0025.]
Regarding claims 11-15,
The steps of these method claims are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the inkjet printer/apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh.
Regarding claim 6,
Ramesh discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above and further teaches
the electric field generator further comprising a component that is coupled to a voltage supply to generate the electric field to move charged evaporated material away from the media within the dryer, through the perforated electrode, and out of the dryer [implicit from paragraph 0025 and the well-known functions and composition of infrared heaters], but fails to expressly disclose the component that is coupled to the voltage supply being a perforated electrode.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use a perforated electrode, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One would have been motivated to use the materials above for the purpose of enhancing the drying process of a printed medium by facilitating faster drying rates, and improved energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 16,
The steps of this method claim are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the inkjet printer/apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh in view of Van Beek et al. (US 2014/0375737 – hereinafter Van Beek.)
Regarding claim 7,
Ramesh discloses an inkjet printer [10’ in fig. 1] comprising:
a media transport [52 in fig. 1] configured to move media [sheet S in fig. 1] through the inkjet printer in a process direction [paragraph 0035]; and
at least one printhead [34A/34B/34C/34D in fig. 1] positioned opposite the media transport [as seen in fig. 1], the at least one printhead being configured to eject drops of ink onto the media being moved by the media transport [paragraph 0038];
an electrostatic charge generator [616 in fig. 7 / 804 in fig. 8] positioned to direct electrostatic charge toward the media being moved by the media transport [paragraphs 0035 and 0039] to improve an evaporation rate in material applied to the media being moved by the media transport [paragraph 0035 recites “The electric fields generated by the electrodes reduce the initial contact angle of the ink drops on the media 704 to improve the wetting of the ink on the media”; by improving the wetting of the ink, the ink spreads more evenly and thinly across the surface of the media, increasing the surface area exposed to air and promoting faster evaporation], the electrostatic charge generator being positioned to direct the electrostatic charge toward the media being moved by the media transport after the at least one printhead has ejected drops of ink onto the media being moved by the media transport [as seen in figs. 1 and 7-8.]
Even though Ramesh teaches that printing on media that has been coated/pre-treated beforehand is known in the art [paragraphs 0004 and 0032], the disclosure fails to expressly disclose the media being pre-treated by a dryer configured to direct heat toward the media as the media transport moves the media through the dryer, and a corona generator positioned within the dryer to direct a corona wind toward media passing through the dryer [please note that the limitation does not recite the drying operation being performed on the media after the at least one printhead has ejected drops of ink onto it, an is open to interpretation.]
However, Van Beek discloses an inkjet printer comprising:
a transport belt configured to move media [P in fig. 1] in a conveyance direction [51 in fig. 1];
a pre-treatment module [13 in fig. 1], which may comprise a heater (i.e. dryer) that includes a corona treatment unit [paragraph 0099 recites “a first pre-treatment module 13, which module may comprise a preheater, for example a radiation heater, a corona/plasma treatment unit, a gaseous acid treatment unit or a combination of any of the above” (emphasis added)];
a printing module [11 in fig. 1] including printheads [111-114 in fig. 1] configured to eject drops of ink onto the media being moved by the media transport.
Therefore, 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 Ramesh invention to include a dryer configured to direct heat toward the media and a corona generator positioned within the dryer as taught by Van Beek for the purpose of ensuring maximum media wettability and permanent ink bonding, therefore boosting print quality.
Regarding claim 17,
The steps of this method claim are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the inkjet printer/apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh as modified by Van Beek.
Regarding claims 8 and 9,
Ramesh discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the corona generator is a coronode (claim 8), and wherein the coronode is an electrically conductive wire (claim 9.)
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use a coronode/electricaly conductive wire within the dryer as the corona generator, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair & Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One would have been motivated to use the materials above for the purpose of enhancing the drying process of a printed medium by facilitating faster drying rates, and improved energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 10,
Ramesh discloses the claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the electrically conductive wire has a diameter of 75 microns.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electrically conductive wire that has a diameter of 75 microns, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One would have been motivated to optimize the diameter for the purpose of having optimum durability and material handling.
Regarding claims 18-20,
The steps of these method claims are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the inkjet printer/apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 X Rodriguez can be reached at (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 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights