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
This application is the 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage entry of PCT/JP2023/012554, filed 03/28/2023 and published WO 2023/190533 A1 on 10/05/2023. The report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA in this National Stage application has been considered by the Primary Examiner. MPEP § 1893.03(e).
This application also claims benefit of JP 2022-060519, filed 03/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Primary Examiner has considered the IDS filed 09/29/2024.
Drawings
The drawings filed 09/29/2024 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s supplemental specification and preliminary amendment to the claims, both filed 09/24/2024, have been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017-192932 A.
Claims 1, 2, and 12
JP 932 teaches a coating method for forming a coating film in multiple adjacent areas of a substrate (“coating regions” of a “to-be-coated surface”) using an inkjet printhead (1). [0001]. The inkjet printhead (1) ejects paint from multiple nozzles toward the object to be painted (2), thereby performing painting (“using a head comprising a plurality of nozzles configured to discharge a liquid”). [0077].
PNG
media_image1.png
472
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For two adjacent coating regions, A and B, of a coating area including adjacent areas A-B-C-D, [Fig. 1], the process comprises controlling the paint discharge amount (P) such that the discharge of paint for coating area A from the edge of the coating region (e.g., extreme left of the figure) is at a constant 100% P until point T1i, at which time the discharge decreases from 100% P to 0% P at point T1o. Then, the discharge of paint for coating area B from point T1i to point T1o increases from 0% P to 100% P (see instant claim 12). Since the coating of area A, which includes the edge of the coating region, involves a gradual decrease in P and the coating of area B, which does not include the edge of the coating region, there exists a point within the second mode (coating area B, with increasing P) where the discharge rate is higher than that of the first mode (coating area A, with decreasing P); an inflection point occurring at point T.
JP 932 is silent with respect to the rate at which the head and nozzles traverse the surface. The Primary Examiner interprets this as a fair teaching that the rate of movement of the head and nozzles is constant. A constant movement rate in the x-y plane, with a decreasing paint discharge amount satisfies the claimed decreasing/lower discharge rate. By extension, a constant movement rate in the x-y plane, with an increasing paint discharge amount satisfies the claimed increasing/greater discharge rate. Consequently, JP 932 anticipates claims 1, 2, and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-192932 A, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of JP 2004-167772 A.
JP 932 does not teach the additional limitations of either claim 3 or claim 4.
Nevertheless, oscillating (vibrating) or forcibly discharging a liquid in a liquid-discharging nozzle of an inkjet print head in order to prevent the nozzle from clogging, etc., is well-known and conventional in the inkjet coating art. See, e.g., JP 772 at [0016]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized either or both of these means to prevent clogging and ensure proper flow and functioning of the nozzles of the print head in JP 932.
Claim(s) 5, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-192932 A, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of DE 10 2017 118442 A1.
Claim 5
The teaching of JP 932 is detailed above.
JP 932 does not teach that coating in the first mode a first gradation coating having a brightness that increases with distance from the edge.
DE 442 teaches that it is known in the art of inkjet coating, in which the printing device is used to apply different amounts of coating material to different sub-areas of a recording medium (“to-be-coated surface”), [0006], that a printhead (103) having a plurality of nozzles (21) can be used to deposit color gradients. [0045] – [0046].
While not explicitly stated, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that “color gradients” in the art are inclusive of gradients that increase or decrease in brightness in a given direction, based on the desired finished appearance of the coated article. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in addition to controlling discharge rate, to control the brightness of the coating as well at any given point in the deposition process, including resulting in a coating having an increasing brightness in the direction of increasing distance from the edge.
Claim 6
As detailed above, JP 932 teaches an overlapping region from T1i – T1 – T1o, that is coated in both the first and second modes.
Claim 7
JP 932 teaches that painting with an inkjet print head involves moving the head back and forth along both the x- and y-axis directions. Insofar as the overlapping region T1i – T1 – T1o exists along the length of the substrate,
PNG
media_image2.png
340
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the region itself can be said to be coated multiple times, even as a given amount of paint is not actually applied to a single point more than once (this interpretation is included within the BRI of the claim).
Claim 8
The teaching of JP 932 is detailed above.
JP 932 does not teach that coating in the first mode a first gradation coating having a brightness that increases with distance from the edge.
DE 442 teaches that it is known in the art of inkjet coating, in which the printing device is used to apply different amounts of coating material to different sub-areas of a recording medium (“to-be-coated surface”), [0006], that a printhead (103) having a plurality of nozzles (21) can be used to deposit color gradients. [0045] – [0046].
While not explicitly stated, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that “color gradients” in the art are inclusive of gradients that increase or decrease in brightness in a given direction, based on the desired finished appearance of the coated article. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in addition to controlling discharge rate, to control the brightness of the coating as well at any given point in the deposition process, including resulting in a coating having an increasing brightness in the direction of increasing distance from the edge.
Claim 9
As detailed above, JP 932 teaches an overlapping region from T1i – T1 – T1o, that is coated in both the first and second modes.
Claim 10
Here, in the combination of JP 932 with DE 442, control of the thickness of the coating to achieve a uniform coating (the goal of JP 932) and control of the appearance of the coating (the goal of DE 442) are distinct parts of the same process and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in addition to controlling the discharge rate, to control the brightness of the coating as well at any given point in the deposition process.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-192932 A.
JP 932 does not specify a distance between the head and the to-be-coated surface.
JP 932 does teach, however, that the distance is a result-effective variable: “When the distance between the inkjet print head 31 and the surface to be coated is short, 100% of the paint ejected in dots from the inkjet printhead 31 adheres to the surface to be coated. However, if the distance from the inkjet print head 31 to the surface to be coated is long, the paint ejected in dots will be subjected to air resistance and will turn into a mist midway, so that not all of the paint will reach the surface to be coated, and some of the paint will dissipate into the air and be wasted.” [0004].
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance between the head and the to-be-coated surface by routine experimentation, absent criticality. MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2008/0309698 A1 is related to the state of the art of using a discharge-rate control means responsive to a condition of the coating deposited on a to-be-coated surface to control the discharge rate of the ink to ensure a coating of uniform thickness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
09 January 2026