DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “its printing position” and “the effective range of the printing unit” lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, “at least substantially in the vertical direction, preferably in the vertical direction” is improper.
Moreover, “respective ones of the locking means” could be ambiguous. Call out the first and third locking means when referring to the first holding means, and call out the second and fourth locking means when referring to the second holding means.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (2007/0146415) in view of Terada et al. (2005/0002005).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a base body 102/all housing components, a printing unit 10, a second holding means 60 for transporting material web into a printing zone movable along parallel guide rails 150/120 extending under an angle of 10 to 35 degrees into and out of a printing position, the second holding means having guide elements 61, see fig. 9, a first holding means 90 also movable into and out of proximity with the printing unit, wherein each of the first and second holding means can be in rest positions and printing positions, locking means for fixing each of the first and second holding means constituted by any number of transmission parts that, when not moving, lock the first and second holding members at their current positions the first holding means is movable in a substantially vertical direction by a motorized lifting system (see fig. 3, [0038]), the first holding means is an ink catching device 90.
Jung does not teach wherein the platen 60 is a suction table. Terada teaches a platen suction table (Terada, [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the first and second holding member architecture of Jung to the suction platen printer disclosed by Terada because doing so would allow for maintenance of the printhead by the first holding member when the second holding member of Terada was at a rest position.
Regarding claim 2, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 1, the first holding means in the printing position can be blocked against movement by first locking means attached to the support frame, which are designed to engage third locking means attached to the first holding means, and that the second holding means in the printing position can be blocked against movement by second locking means attached to the support frame, which are designed to engage fourth locking means attached to the second holding means (Jung, see figs. 1-9, rejection of claim 1. Again, note that “block movement” has not been defined. Here, the holding means are both blocked from movement when they are stationary by all of the other components that would otherwise be driving their movements).
Regarding claim 4, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 3, the guide rails extend horizontally in or against the transport direction of the material web at least in the effective range of the printing unit (see figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 3, the guide elements comprise wheels mounted on the second holding means (Jung, see figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 1, the ink catching device comprises an endless conveyor belt running between two deflection rollers for catching and removing ink drops passing through a mesh-like material web during printing, as well as two guide edges arranged transversely to the transport direction of the material web and on opposite sides of the conveyor belt, such that the mesh-like material web can be guided in the transport direction of the material web at a distance greater than zero from the section of the conveyor belt facing the mesh-like material web when the mesh-like material web is under tension in the transport direction, wherein the conveyor belt can be driven at least by one of the two deflection rollers, which is connected to a motor (Jung, see figs. 1-9, rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 7, the ink catching device comprises a cleaning unit for removing ink from the conveyor belt (Jung, see figs. 1-, rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 8, the cleaning unit comprises a blade with a cutting edge, wherein the cleaning unit is arranged at one of the deflection rollers such that when the conveyor belt runs over at least one deflection roller and ink drops collected on the conveyor belt harden or dry, the cutting edge can scrape off hardened or dried ink drops from the conveyor belt (Jung, see figs. 1-9, rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 1, the base body comprises at least one plate facing the printing unit in the inlet and/or outlet area of the printing unit, which at least partially encloses the effective range of the printing unit and forms an upper side of the base body, wherein the plate comprises a flap in the inlet or outlet area that can be opened away from the effective range of the printing unit, which can be moved between a closed position and an opened position, such that in the opened position access to the second rest position under the flap is provided to the second holding means, and in the closed position access to the second rest position is blocked by the flap (Jung, see figs. 1-9, rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 7, the mesh-like material web is a mesh material web (Jung, see figs. 1-9, rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of Terada teaches the printing system according to claim 1, the guide edges of the ink catching device or the surface of the suction table subjected to negative pressure, when the ink catching device or the suction table is brought into the printing position, are arranged higher than the surface of the plate facing the preferably printing unit (Jung, see figs. 1-9, rejection of claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights