DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the regulation of the shrinkage” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the start values for the second range” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the regulation” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima (2014/0368590) in view of Loffler et al. (2007/0137788) and Goto (2015/0277307).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Shima teaches a method for inline operation of a printing plant, wherein
the printing plant has a printing unit (fig. 9, item 10) for printing a paper web (fig. 9, item S) according to a predefined job with predefined job data (note that that is necessarily job data),
wherein the paper web is conveyed through the printing plant at a web speed (see fig. 9, note that every moving thing moves at a speed),
wherein the printing plant has at least one dryer (fig. 9, item 8) with an adjustable drying performance ([0031]) in order to dry the paper web, as a result of which the paper web experiences shrinkage (see fig. 3),
wherein the printing plant has at least one dampener (fig. 9, item 250) with an adjustable dampening performance in order to dampen the paper web and thereby adjust a moisture content of the paper web ([0032]),
wherein the shrinkage and the moisture content of the paper web are regulated to a setpoint shrinkage and a setpoint moisture content by adjusting the drying performance and the dampening performance depending on the actual shrinkage and the actual moisture content ([0031]-[0032], Note that the temperature of the heater and humidity of the dampener are adjusted according to the type of medium and associated shrinkage amount of that medium).
Shima does not teach wherein an actual shrinkage and an actual moisture content are determined for the paper web and a setpoint shrinkage and a setpoint moisture content are predefined. Loffler teaches this (Loffler, [0019], [0049], Note that all actual measured widths and moistures are compared to the setpoint width and moisture measured at the beginning of the unprocessed web). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the actual vs. setpoint value determination technique disclosed by Loffler in the device disclosed by Shima because doing so would allow for more precise corrections of heating and moisturizing parameters than simply calculating width and moisture from other parameters.
Upon combination of the references, the sensors of Loffler would be added to Shima so that the width of the and moisture of the web were measured before and after processing, and the temperatures of the heater and dampener of Shima would be adjusted during processing so as to minimize shrinkage of the medium.
Shima in view of Loffler does not teach wherein a control unit maintains a plurality of setpoint shrinkage values associated with different paper types of grammages, and wherein, for a new print job, the control unit determines an appropriate setpoint shrinkage by selecting one of the plurality of setpoint shrinkage values or by interpolating between at least two of the plurality of setpoint shrinkage values. Goto teaches determining a shrinkage ratio for a sheet from a new print job based on the specific type of sheet, the shrinkage ratio necessarily having an associated shrinkage setpoint for the specific type of sheet (Goto, [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the shrinkage setpoint determination approach disclosed by Goto in the device disclosed by Shima in view of Loffler because doing so would allow for more precise control over the amount of shrinkage of any given sheet or print job via control of the dryer and dampener.
Regarding claim 2, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the paper web is fed to a corrugated cardboard plant after printing, wherein the web speed is predefined by the corrugated cardboard plant and varies over time (Loffler, [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the actual shrinkage of the paper web is determined by measuring a web width of the paper web downstream of the dryer and comparing it with a web width upstream of the printing unit or by optically measuring a shrinkage of print image marks on the paper web (Loffler, [0019], [0049])
Regarding claim 4, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the actual shrinkage is determined with a first sensor which is arranged downstream of the printing unit and at the end of the printing plant or outside thereof, except in the case of a splice, in which case the actual shrinkage is determined with a second sensor which is arranged upstream of the first sensor (Loffler, [0019], [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the shrinkage is regulated such that the actual shrinkage lies within a tolerance range around the setpoint shrinkage, wherein the moisture content is regulated such that the actual moisture content corresponds to at least a minimum moisture content (Shima, see fig. 3, Note that the temperature of the heater and the moisture content of the humidity provided necessarily fall within ranges having maximums and minimums).
Regarding claim 6, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the regulation of the shrinkage is limited by a minimum value for the dryer performance so that a minimum degree of drying is ensured (Shima, see fig. 3, Note that the temperature of the heater and the moisture content of the humidity provided necessarily fall within ranges having maximums and minimums).
Regarding claim 7, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein start values for the drying performance and the dampening performance are stored for a plurality of intervals of the web speed, wherein when the web speed changes from a first interval to a second interval, the start values for the second interval are first set and then the shrinkage and moisture content are regulated based on these (Loffler, [0038], [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein if the setpoint shrinkage changes by a value that exceeds a predefined limit, the drying performance and the dampening performance are changed once by a predefined value in each case and then the shrinkage and moisture are regulated based on this (Shima, [0031], [0032], Loffler, [0019], [0049], Note that if a wider sheet is measured at the start after a narrower sheet, the setpoint values of width and moisture increase, and the temperature of the heater and moisture provided by the dampener change to minimize shrinkage).
Regarding claim 9, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein when changing from a current job to a new job and if the new job requires an additional coating, a dryer for this coating is already preheated during the current job (Shima, note that the dryer is preheated no matter what the job is).
Regarding claim 10, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dryer is a hot air dryer and the printing plant has in addition to this an IR dryer to dry the paper web, wherein, if an increase in the drying performance is requested by the regulation system, the IR dryer is activated as a substitute during a heating phase of the dryer in order to meet this request (Shima, [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the printing plant has a pre-dryer to pre-dry the paper web before printing (Shima, fig. 9, item 22).
Regarding claim 12, Shima in view of Loffler and Goto teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the regulation is relieved by the fact that a compensation factor is already predefined with the job data in order to print the print enlarged in comparison with a setpoint dimension, so that a certain amount of shrinkage is permitted and does not have to be compensated for by the regulation (Shima, [0031], [0032, Loffler, [0019], [0049], Note that if a wider sheet is measured at the start after a narrower sheet, the setpoint values of width and moisture increase, and the temperature of the heater and moisture provided by the dampener change to minimize shrinkage).
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