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 priority a national stage application of PCT/US23/14671 under 35 U.S.C. 371. The requirements 35 U.S.C. 371 are met.
Furthermore, the instant claims find support in the provisional application PRO 63/317,191.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on a Form PTO 1449 have been considered.
Specification
The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwede et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,757,389).
Schwede et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding independent Claim 1, a printing system (1’, col. 5, lines 49-67, col. 6, col. 7, lines 1-15 and Fig. 3), comprising:
a conveyor (5, col. 5, lines 49-67 and Fig. 3);
at least one ink jet head (20a, 20b, 20c, col. 6, lines 14-23 and Fig. 3);
an actuator operable to move the at least one ink jet head relative to the conveyor (24, col. 3, lines 6-38, col. 5, lines 49-67 and Figs. 1, 3);
a first sensor (46, 47, 48, col. 6, lines 1-32 and Fig. 3) and a second sensor (43, 14, col. 6, lines 33-63 and Fig. 3) adapted to sense a particular dimension and an entire area of a surface of a package, respectively; and
a control system (22, col. 5, lines 49-67, col. 6, col. 7, lines 1-15 and Fig. 3) responsive to the first sensor and the second sensor and operable to position the at least one ink jet head for printing.
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the first sensor senses package height at a first resolution (above or below the height of the light barrier 46, 47, 48, col. 6, lines 1-32 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the second sensor senses package height at a second resolution finer than the first resolution (col. 6, lines 33-63 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the first sensor comprises at least one emitter/detector to sense at least one distance (col. 6, lines 1-32 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the first sensor comprises a plurality of emitters/detectors (46, 47, 48, col. 6, lines 1-32 and Fig. 3) to sense multiple distances.
Regarding Claim 6, wherein the first sensor is operable at intervals to sense multiple distances (lines 1-32 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein the second sensor comprises a micrometer to sense a plurality of distances (col. 7, lines 13-15; please note that laser distance sensors disclosed by Schwede et al. appear to correspond to the “laser micrometer” of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the first sensor is operable to sense a first plurality of heights at a first resolution and the micrometer is operable to sense a second plurality of heights at a second resolution finer than the first resolution (col. 6, lines 1-63 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the control system is operable to move a print apparatus to a position within a range of gap distances from the package (col. 6, lines 34-45 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the at least one ink jet head is disposed in a print head housing wherein the actuator moves the print head housing to move the at least one ink jet head (19, col. 3, lines 6-=26, col. 5, lines 49-53 and Fig. 3).
Regarding independent Claim 14, a method of printing on packages (col. 5, lines 49-67, col. 6, col. 7, lines 1-15 and Fig. 3), the method comprising the steps of:
operating a first sensor (46, 47, 48, col. 6, lines 1-32 and Fig. 3) to measure a dimension of a package to obtain an approximate dimension measurement;
establishing a position of a second sensor (43, 14, col. 6, lines 33-63 and Fig. 3) in dependence upon the approximate dimension measurement;
operating the second sensor to measure the dimension of the package to obtain a further dimension measurement (col. 6, lines 33-63 and Fig. 3);
disposing a print apparatus (20a, 20b, 20c, col. 6, lines 14-23 and Fig. 3) at a position dependent upon the further dimension measurement (col. 5, lines 49-67, col. 6, col. 7, lines 1-15 and Fig. 3); and
operating the print apparatus to print on a surface of the package (col. 1, lines 41-67, col. 2, lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the step of operating the first sensor comprises the step of operating at least one emitter/detector to sense at least one distance (col. 6, lines 1-32 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 16, wherein the step of operating the first sensor comprises the step of operating a plurality of emitters/detectors to sense multiple distances (46, 47, 48, col. 6, lines 1-32 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, wherein the step of operating the second sensor comprises the step of operating a micrometer to sense a plurality of distances (col. 7, lines 13-15; please note that laser distance sensors disclosed by Schwede et al. appear to correspond to the “laser micrometer” of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 18, wherein the step of operating the second sensor comprises the step of operating a light sensor to sense a plurality of distances (col. 6, lines 33-63, col. 7, lines 1-15 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 19, wherein each of the steps of operating the first and second sensors comprises the step of sensing a height of the package (col. 5, lines 49-67, col. 6, col. 7, lines 1-15 and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 20, wherein the step of disposing the print apparatus comprises the step of moving the print apparatus to a position within a range of gap distances from the package (col. 6, lines 34-45 and Fig. 3).
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) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwede et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,757,389) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kelley et al. (U.S. 2004/0008230 A1).
Schwede et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claims 10-11, all limitations of Claim 1 (from which these Claims depend).
Schwede et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 10, wherein the at least one ink jet head is a piezoelectric printhead.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the at least one ink jet head is a drop on demand ink jet printhead.
Kelley et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 10, wherein the at least one ink jet head is a piezoelectric printhead (§0003). 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 piezoelectric printhead of Kelley et al. to the printing system of Schwede et al. to reduce the printing system to practice using a known type of printhead.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the at least one ink jet head is a drop on demand ink jet printhead (§0003). 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 drop on demand printhead of Kelley et al. to the printing system of Schwede et al. to reduce the printing system to practice using a known type of printhead.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwede et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,757,389) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kelley et al. (U.S. 2004/0008230 A1).
Schwede et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 13, all limitations of Claim 12 (from which this Claim depends).
Schwede et al. do not disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the print head housing comprises at least four ink jet heads disposed therein.
Kelley et al. disclose the following claimed limitations:
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the print head housing comprises at least four ink jet heads disposed therein (§0019). 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 four printheads of Kelley et al. to the printing system of Schwede et al. to enable the printing system to print in CMYK colors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV whose telephone number is (571)270-7049. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Rodrigues 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.
/ALEXANDER D SHENDEROV/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights