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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the exact metes and bounds are not clear because the claim language is broadly recited and awkward and confusing. In particular, it appears that applicant is attempting to define a method for printing based on a desired image to be printed (which is a variable value) rather than specifically defining the inkjet head(s), ink quantities, and the particular control mechanisms/steps associated with the inkjet head/printer that results in separating the determined ink quantity (once it has been determined) into two partial printing operations by a single head.
It is also noted that claim 1 recites multiple and seemingly different ink quantities: an ink quantity to be applied to the container, a partial ink quantity applied to the container, and a maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head. However, the exact inter-relationship between these different quantities and how they are determined/defined is not clearly defined in the claim language. For example, it is not clear what is meant by “wherein a partial ink quantity is applied to the container in each printing operation in a manner which is dependent on the ink quantity to be applied.” How is the partial ink quantity applied dependent on the ink quantity to be applied? The particular “dependency” between these two recited quantities has not been clearly defined as to how or when it is determined. For example, is one a fraction of or a multiple of the other? Equal to it? Or dependent in some other way? Is the partial ink quantity determined as part of the determining step before the applying step or at some other point? As a result, the metes and bounds of this language are unclear. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2173.04 which states “a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.”
Additionally, it is noted that line 2 recites “one inkjet print head per ink” and it is unclear if this term is intending to recite a plurality of heads or a singular head. However, it is also noted that the body of the claim recites “each inkjet print head” and “the inkjet print heads” (line 5) which implies that the method is intended to be used with multiple print heads. Then, in lines 9-10, the claim again refers to “the inkjet print head” (singular). This variance in claim terminology makes the exact scope of the claim unclear.
Additionally, the phrase “wherein the partial ink quantity in each printing operation corresponds to up to a maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head” is also unclear as to what the phrase “corresponds to up to” is intended to mean. For example, if the maximum ink quantity is printed in the first printing operation, would a second printing operation even be necessary? Is this “correspondence” determined in the determining step? Furthermore, the claims do not clearly define the relationship between the maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head and the determined ink quantity to be applied to the container. Thus, the exact metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear.
With respect to claim 2, the language “wherein at least two of the inkjet print heads of the one inkjet print head per ink” is awkward and unclear in meaning. In particular, it is noted that claim 1 recites “one inkjet print head per ink” and therefore the language in claim 2 is awkward and confusing and appears to lack proper antecedent basis because it is not clear that claim 1 has recited a plurality of inkjet print heads.
With respect to claim 3, the language “a step of adjusting, the step of adjusting comprising the ink quantity ejected by the at least two inkjet print heads” is awkward and unclear as to what is being adjusted. It is suggested that claim 3 be amended to use language such as the following: --a step of adjusting, the step of adjusting comprising adjusting the ink quantity ejected by the at least two inkjet print heads.--
With respect to claim 6, the language “the step of determining deriving color values” is awkward and it is suggested that the language be amended to recite --the step of determining comprises deriving color values-- (emphasis added).
With respect to claim 9, the term “the ink quantity to be ejected” has no proper antecedent basis because claim 1 previously recited “an ink quantity to be applied” and “a maximum ink quantity which can be ejected” and it is not clear if the term “the ink quantity to be ejected” in claim 9 is intended to be referring back to one of these previously recited elements or something different. Note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
With respect to claim 11, note that the claim language is confusing because the claim preamble recites “for printing containers” (plural--line 1, emphasis added) and the body recites “configured to carry out a method for printing a container” (singular--line 4, emphasis added). Additionally, it is noted that in line 2 recites “an inkjet print head” (singular) and then line 3 recites “the respective ink jet print heads” (plural). Furthermore, lines 7-8 recite “each inkjet print head” and “at least one of the inkjet print heads” indicating that a plurality of heads are present while line 12 recites “the inkjet print head” (singular). This alternative language usage referring to both a singular structure and plural structures within the same claim renders the claim unclear in scope. Additionally, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are unclear in that the claim is directed to an apparatus in the preamble and the first 3 lines but then the majority of the body of the claim recites method steps with respect to the operation of the apparatus.
Furthermore, attention is invited to the previous comments with respect to the similar language recited in claim 1. For example, it is also noted that claim 11 recites multiple and seemingly different ink quantities: an ink quantity to be applied to the container, a partial ink quantity applied to the container, and a maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head. However, the exact inter-relationship between these different quantities and how they are determined/defined is not clearly defined in the claim language. For example, it is not clear what is meant by “wherein a partial ink quantity is applied to the container in each printing operation in a manner which is dependent on the ink quantity to be applied.” How is the partial ink quantity applied dependent on the ink quantity to be applied? The particular “dependency” between these two recited quantities has not been clearly defined as to how or when it is determined. For example, is one a fraction of or a multiple of the other? Equal to it? Or dependent in some other way? Is the partial ink quantity determined as part of the determining step before the applying step or at some other point? As a result, the metes and bounds of this language are unclear. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2173.04 which states “a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.”
Additionally, the phrase “wherein the partial ink quantity in each printing operation corresponds to up to the maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head” is also unclear as to what the phrase “corresponds to up to” is intended to mean. For example, if the maximum ink quantity is printed in the first printing operation, would a second printing operation even be necessary? Is this “correspondence” determined in the determining step? Furthermore, the claims do not clearly define the relationship between the maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head and the determined ink quantity to be applied to the container. Additionally, the term “the maximum ink quantity” in lines 11-12 has no proper antecedent basis because no maximum ink quantity was previously recited in the claim. Thus, the exact metes and bounds of claim 11 are unclear.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al. (EP 1 225 053 A2).
With respect to claim 1, Long et al. teaches a method for printing a container 12 with a printing image using one inkjet print head per ink (6, 7, 8, paragraphs [0012], [0029], claim 14), the method comprising determining an ink quantity to be applied to the container in a manner which is dependent on the printing image to be applied for each ink (i.e., the amount of ink necessary to be printed for each color, see paragraph [0010], claims 5, 19), and applying the ink quantity to be applied by each inkjet print head, wherein at least one of the inkjet print heads 6, 7, 8 applies the ink quantity to be applied to the container in two printing operations (i.e., two rotations of the container), wherein a partial ink quantity is applied to the container in each printing operation in a manner which is dependent on the ink quantity to be applied, wherein the partial ink quantity in each printing operation corresponds to up to a maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head. See, in particular, Figures 1-2, paragraph [0011] and claim 3 of Long et al.
With respect to claim 11, note Long et al. teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-2) for printing containers 12 with a printing image, the apparatus comprising an inkjet print head (6, 7, 8, paragraphs [0012], [0029], claim 14) for ejecting an ink and a control unit (see the described control of the inkjet heads in paragraphs [0027], [0031], claim 1) for controlling the ejection of ink by the respective inkjet print heads, wherein the apparatus is configured to carry out a method for printing a container with a multi-color printing image, the method comprising determining an ink quantity to be applied to the container in a manner which is dependent on the printing image to be applied for each ink (i.e., the amount of ink necessary to be printed for each color, see paragraph [0010], claims 5, 19), and applying the ink quantity to be applied by each inkjet print head, wherein at least one of the inkjet print heads 6, 7, 8 applies the ink quantity to be applied to the container in two printing operations (i.e., two rotations of the container), wherein a partial ink quantity is applied to the container in each printing operation in a manner which is dependent on the ink quantity to be applied, wherein the partial ink quantity in each printing operation corresponds to up to the maximum ink quantity which can be ejected by the inkjet print head. See, in particular, Figures 1-2, paragraph [0011], and claim 3 of Long et al.
With respect to claim 12, Note that MPEP 2114 states that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” and also states that “A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” In the instant case, since Long et al. teaches a curing device (paragraphs [0020], [0037]) which is arranged in the machine such that the ink is capable of being cured after each print operation, it thereby meets the claim language.
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.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (EP 1 225 053 A2) in view of Madigan et al. (US 2017/0157949 A1).
With respect to claims 2-3, Long et al. teaches a method for printing a container as recited including having multiple print heads 6, 7, 8 ejecting ink droplets from nozzles based upon the partial ink quantity to be applied but does not specifically teach that the size of the droplets maybe adjusted in discrete partial steps from 0 up to a maximum ink droplet size. However, Madigan et al. teaches that the control/adjustment of the ink droplet size/ink quantity ejected in print heads is well known in the art. See, for example, paragraph [0045] of Madigan et al. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the particular droplet size/ink quantity ejected for the printheads in Long et al. to allow for each partial print to have an appropriate layer thickness with reduced deposition time.
With respect to claims 4-5, note Madigan et al. also teaches it is well known in the art to vary the maximum droplet size for an inkjet head by changing a control signal for the head in paragraphs [0047] and [0075]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the particular droplet size/ink quantity ejected for the printheads by changing the control signal driving the heads in the device of Long et al. to allow for better control of the ink droplet size such that each partial print will have an appropriate layer thickness with reduced deposition time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (EP 1 225 053 A2).
With respect to claim 10, Long et al. teaches a method for printing a container including having a curing step for curing the printing prior to removal of the printed article from the support, as described in paragraphs [0020] and [0037], claim 18. Long et al. does not explicitly teach that the curing step occurs after each printing operation of the partial prints. However, the concept of curing print layers after each layer has been applied is well known in the art. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the curing step to occur after each print layer/partial print has been applied to the container so as to insure the layer is appropriately cured on the surface before the next print layer is applied so as to form clear and crisp composite images on a surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112, the applicant argues that the claims have been amended to address the rejection. While some of the 112 issues have been corrected, the Examiner is not persuaded that all of the issues under 35 USC 112 have been remedied. Note the rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth above for more details.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, applicant argues that Long et al. does not disclose a step of determining an ink quantity to be applied and that a determination of a size of ink droplets to be applied to the same position is not envisaged by Long et al. In particular, the applicant argues that there is no disclosure in Long towards determining an ink quantity to be applied and separating the determined ink quantity once determined into two printing operations. The Examiner is not persuaded by these arguments. Specifically, the Examiner points out that the claim language as recited is very broad and the Examiner maintains that Long et al. teaches the method and apparatus as recited. See the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 set forth above for details. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separating the determined ink quantity once determined into two printing operations, applying multiple droplets to the same position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In view of the above reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
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 LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights