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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “printing station configured to imprint….”, “a first sensor configured to detect”, “the first printer configured to dispense…” in claim 21, “cutting station is configured to cut….” in claim 23, “a second sensor configured to detect….” in claim 24, “a feed assembly configured to control….” in claim 25, “a third sensor configured to detect…..” in claim 26, “the second printer is configured…..” in claims 33 and 34, “a horizontal printer adjuster configured to change…..” in claim 35.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 21, 22, 24-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holmes (US Patent 5,269,120).
With respect to claim 21, Holmes teaches a system comprising a printing station (30) configured to impart indicia on a plurality of clips (note: “a plurality of clips is not a positively recited feature, however Holmes does at least teach a plurality of closures 20 that function as a plurality of clips) formed in a strip (Figures 2a, 3), the printing station comprising:
a first sensor (322) configured to detect a portion of a first clip of the plurality of clips (Column 8, Line 66-Column 9, Line 8) and configured to transmit a first signal to a print controller (60, Figures 10, 11);
the print controller (60) configured to activate a first printer (302); and
the first printer (30, 302) configured to dispense ink on a first surface of a second clip of the plurality of clips in response to an activation command received from the print controller (Abstract, Column 4, Lines 7-14, Lines 42-47, Lines 52-59, Column 15, Line 22-65).
With respect to claim 22, it is noted the limitation, “the printing station receives a free loop of the strip that hangs with a sag between a cutting station and the printing station” and specifically, “a free loop of strip”, is not positively recited. Thus, the dependent claims further defining the structure of a free loop of strip does not have any patentable significance to the apparatus claims as presently written. Therefore, Holmes et al teaches all the structure of the apparatus as positively recited.
With respect to claim 24, Holmes teaches a second sensor (320) configured to detect a length of the free loop and transmit a second signal to a process controller (note “a free loop”, is not positively recited. Thus, the dependent claims further defining the structure of a free loop does not have any patentable significance to the apparatus claims as presently written. Therefore, Holmes et al. teaches all the structure of the apparatus as positively recited and Holmes at least teaches sensor 320 senses the suspension of a foil).
With respect to claim 25, Holmes teaches a feed assembly (304) configured to control a speed of the strip relative to the first printer based on the second signal (Column 8, Lines 27-38, Column 9, Lines 19-22, Column 14, Lines 45-54).
With respect to claim 26, Holmes a third sensor (430) configured to detect the speed and transmit a third signal to the print controller.
With respect to claim 27, Holmes teaches the first sensor (322) is positioned downstream from the first printer (302) with respect to a machine direction (Figures 12A, 12B).
With respect to claim 29, Holmes teaches a support platen disposed under the strip (plate with holes and rectangular cutout in Figure 12C).
With respect to claim 30, Holmes teaches the support platen comprises a channel that has a smaller width proximate (plate with holes and rectangular cutout in Figure 12C) the first printer (302) than away from the first printer (Figures 12A,12B).
With respect to claim 31, Holmes teaches the first sensor (322) is mounted under an opening in the support platen (plate with holes and rectangular cutout in Figure 12C and Figure 12B).
With respect to claim 32, Holmes teaches a second printer (30 provides multiple print heads 30, Column 7, Lines 59-61).
With respect to claim 33, Holmes teaches the second printer (30 provides multiple print heads 30, Column 7, Lines 59-61) is configured to dispense ink on the first surface of the second clip of the plurality of clips (Abstract, Column 4, Lines 7-14, Lines 42-47, Lines 52-59, Column 15, Line 22-65).
With respect to claim 34, Holmes teaches the second printer (30 provides multiple print heads 30, Column 7, Lines 59-61) is configured to dispense ink on a second surface, that is opposite the first surface, of the second clip of the plurality of clips (note: “a plurality of clips is not a positively recited feature, however Holmes does at least teach a plurality of closures 20 that function as a plurality of clips and Holmes teaches a structure of a printer that can print surfaces, Abstract, Column 4, Lines 7-14, Lines 42-47, Lines 52-59, Column 15, Line 22-65 ).
With respect to claim 36, Holmes teaches the first printer (30, 302) comprises a vertical printer slider.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Patent 5,269,120) in view of Nursey (GB2178392).
With respect to claim 23, Holmes et al. teaches the claimed invention however does not explicitly disclose the cutting station is configured to: cut a first portion of a web material into at least the first clip (note: a web of material is not positively recited. Thus, the dependent claims further defining the structure of a web of material does not have any patentable significance to the apparatus claims as presently written. Therefore, since Holmes teaches all the structure of the apparatus as positively recited); and index the first portion after cutting to sequentially cut a second portion of the web material into at least the second clip, wherein cut portions of the web material exit the cutting station in the free loop.
Nursey teaches a cutting station (8) is configured to: cut a first portion of a web material into at least the first clip; and index the first portion after cutting to sequentially cut a second portion of the web material into at least the second clip (note: a web of material is not positively recited. Thus, the dependent claims further defining the structure of a web of material does not have any patentable significance to the apparatus claims as presently written. Therefore, since Holmes teaches all the structure of the apparatus as positively recited), wherein cut portions of the web material exit the cutting station in the free loop (Abstract, Page 1, Lines 63-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by Holmes to provide a cutting station as taught by Nursey for the purpose of effectively cutting the medium.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Patent 5,269,120).
With respect to claim 28, Holmes teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the first sensor is positioned upstream from the first printer with respect to a machine direction.
However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and In re Kuhle, 526, 188 USPQ 7(CCPA 1975).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized to provide the first sensor is positioned upstream from the first printer with respect to a machine direction for the purpose of effectively sensing the clips in multiple locations.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Patent 5,269,120) in view of Lin et al. (CN 210733610).
With respect to claim 37, Holmes teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the first printer comprises a horizontal printer adjuster.
Lin et al. teaches a printer (7) comprises a horizontal printer adjuster (6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the printer taught by Holmes to provide a horizontal printer adjuster as taught by Lin et al. for the purpose of providing a versatile printer.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US Patent 5,269,120) in view of Mao (CN 203766120).
With respect to claim 38, Holmes teaches the claimed invention with the exception of an ink curing unit.
Mao teaches a printer (20) with an ink curing unit (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the printer taught by Holmes to provide an ink curing unit as taught by Mao for the purpose of effectively drying the ink without smearing on the medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35 and 39 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.
With respect to claim 35, the prior art does not teach or render obvious a horizontal printer adjuster configured to change a horizontal position of both the first printer and the second printer in tandem.
With respect to claim 39, the prior art does not teach or render obvious ink curing unit comprises at least one of a vertical lamp slider or a horizontal lamp adjuster.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments, that Holmes teaches the edge detector 322 is positioned directly opposite its print head 302 at a single closure 20 and thus, Holmes detects the same clip that is being printed and therefore Holmes does not describe a printing station in which a sensor detects a portion of one clip and sends signals to a controller to activate printing at a different clip of a connected strip, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it would appear that the controller/sensor would not only store/input information with regard to the current printing on the clip that is positioned opposite with respect to the printhead as shown in Figure 12B and also the next and subsequent clips in the plurality of clips. Additionally, in Column 15, Claim 1 of Holmes teaches moving a second closure to the printhead and printing a symbol of the second closure simultaneously while being advanced. Therefore, the printing/advancing on the second closure/additional closures only happen based on memory that is stored from the controller/sensor. Holmes teaches all the structure including a controller as recited, Holmes thereby teaches the claim language. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-149. 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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights