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 14-17 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.
Claims 14 and 17 newly recite “wherein when the printing stock is conveyed to the first rearrangement magnetization device and the second rearrangement magnetization device, magnetic pigment sheets in the ink or varnish containing a magnetic substance are rearranged parallel to the printing stock.”
However, with respect to claim 14, no prior process steps of conveying the printing stock to a first or second rearrangement magnetization device are recited. It is therefore not clear if the claim requires the steps of conveying the printing stock to a first rearrangement magnetization device and a second rearrangement magnetization device. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected based upon their dependency.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites a limitation that is conditional; that is, the pigments rearrange when they are conveyed. However, neither a first rearrangement magnetization device nor a second rearrangement magnetization device have been required by the claim. It is therefore not clear if a first rearrangement magnetization device or a second rearrangement magnetization device are intended to be part of the claimed device. For purposes of Examination, the limitation will be interpreted as being an intended use of the recited printing device and that the first and second rearrangement magnetization devices are not required structures of the printing device.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (CN 114132052A). Regarding claim 1, Xin et al. disclose a “multi-optical-color optically-variable printing device (Figure 1), comprising: a conveying unit (paragraph 21) for conveying a printing stock; a screen printing unit for printing ink or varnish containing a magnetic substance on the printing stock (paragraph 20); and a plurality of optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units (Figure 1, items 160, 170, 180, 190), wherein the plurality of optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units are respectively configured to form optical-color optically-variable patterns on different regions of the printing stock (paragraph 31); each optical-color optically-variable pattern forming unit comprises: magnetizing rollers (items 160 and 180), wherein magnetic orientation components are arranged on each magnetizing roller and configured to perform magnetic orientation on the printing stock (paragraph 70); and pre-drying and curing devices (items 170 and 190) for pre-drying and curing the printing stock; wherein, the conveying unit, the screen printing unit and the plurality of optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units are arranged successively in the conveying direction of the printing stock (Figure 1); wherein, the magnetic orientation components of at least two optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units have different magnetization effects from each other (paragraph 31), the pre-drying and curing devices are arranged opposite to each other at the outer sides of the magnetic orientation components (Figure 1), and in the process that the magnetic orientation components conduct magnetic orientation to the printing stock, the pre-drying and curing device conducts pre-drying and curing to the printing stock at the same time (paragraph 28); and wherein, the pre-drying and curing device comprises an optical mask curing device (paragraphs 36 and 94: ‘spatial light modulator’), the optical mask curing device is fixedly arranged and configured to project a dynamically refreshable variable optical field image-text (paragraph 64: ‘changed in real time’; paragraph 94: ‘variable coding information’).” Regarding the final limitation that “and the variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously move a predetermined distance,” Xin et al. do not specifically mention any registration or alignment procedures. However, since the system shown in Figure 1 is a rotary press, in order for the curing of the desired image to be properly aligned, the projected desired image must be moved in sync with the substrate in order for the image to be correctly aligned. Therefore, Examiner asserts that Xin et al. explicitly disclose that “the variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously move a predetermined distance.” Regardless, one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the filing of the invention, would have been motivated to move the projected variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously a predetermined distance in order to have the desired image correctly created in the substrate.
Xin et al. fail to disclose “wherein, the multi-optical-color optically-variable printing device comprises a sensor, and the sensor is configured to collect the position information and speed information of the printing stock.” However, the position information and the speed information of the printing stock are necessary information for the spatial light modulator to be able to correctly expose the printing stock, and a sensor is a known means for acquiring such information. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device with a sensor for providing the position and speed information of the printing stock so that the controller can control the spatial light modulator such that the printing stock is correctly exposed. Xin et al. also fail to disclose “wherein the multi-optical-color optically-variable printing device further comprises: a first rearrangement magnetization device, wherein the first rearrangement magnetization device is provided between the screen printing unit and the optical-color optically-variable pattern forming unit; and a second rearrangement magnetization device, wherein the second rearrangement magnetization device is provided between multiple optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units, wherein when the printing stock is conveyed to the first rearrangement magnetization device and the second rearrangement magnetization device, magnetic pigment sheets in the ink or varnish containing a magnetic substance are rearranged parallel to the printing stock.” However, Xin et al. do teach that allowing the magnetic particles to level through natural settling (that is, they are rearranged parallel to the printing stock) in order to increase the contrast (paragraph 33). Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing another magnetization device to re-level the particles would be faster than allowing them to settle naturally. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Xin et al. with a magnetization device to level the particles. Furthermore, since the contrast is increased by having more consistently level particles as compared to the particles which are changed by the magnetization device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide a rearrangement magnetization device before each of the first and second pattern forming units in order to provide the most contrast between the magnetized areas. Regarding claim 2, Xin et al. further disclose “the optical mask curing device comprises:
a light source for emitting light (see the source in Figure 8); a controller for receiving, storing and processing image-text data for projection, and generating a control signal based on the image-text data for projection (paragraph 66, Figure 8); a lens (paragraph 66); and a spatial light modulator for receiving the light emitted by the light source and the control signal to project the variable optical field image-text through the lens (paragraph 66); wherein, the spatial light modulator comprises one of a digital micro mirror DMD, a liquid crystal spatial light modulator and an acousto-optical modulator (paragraphs 36 and 66).” Xin et al. fail to disclose “receiving the position information and the speed information of the sensor, generating a control signal based on the position information, the speed information and the image-text data for projection.” However, the position information and the speed information of the printing stock are necessary information for the spatial light modulator to be able to correctly expose the printing stock, and a sensor is a known means for acquiring such information. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device with a sensor for providing the position and speed information of the printing stock so that the controller can control the spatial light modulator such that the printing stock is correctly exposed. Regarding claim 3, Xin et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 2 above, except “wherein, the optical mask curing device further comprises a heat dissipation assembly and the heat dissipation assembly is configured to dissipate heat for the spatial light modulator and/or the light source.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the filling of the invention, it was known to provide light sources and/or spatial light modulators with a cooling apparatus to prevent them from overheating. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the optical mask curing device of Xin et al. with a cooling device in order to prevent the spatial light modulator and/or the light source from overheating.
Since Applicant did not traverse that which was asserted as being common knowledge, that which was taken to be common knowledge is now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP §2144.03(c). Regarding claim 4, Xin et al. further disclose “wherein, the light source comprises a UV-LED light source or a laser light source, and the wavelength of the light emitted by the light source is 350 nm˜425 nm (paragraph 37).” Regarding claim 5, Xin et al. further disclose “wherein, the variable optical field image-text comprises one of an image, a character, a serial number, a barcode, and a QR code (paragraph 94: ‘anti-counterfeiting graphics or variable coding’).” Regarding claim 8, Xin et al. further disclose “wherein, the multi-optical-color optically-variable printing device further comprises: a delivery system (item 110), and the delivery system comprises multiple conveying rollers, and the delivery system is configured to convey the printing stock (see the rollers in the Figures; paragraph 94).”
Regarding claim 10, Xin et al. further disclose “wherein, the ink or the varnish comprises an optical-color optically-variable ink, a curing gloss oil, or other types of UV curing ink (paragraph 12).” Regarding claim 11, Xin et al. further disclose “wherein, the printing stock comprises one of paper, a plastic sheet, and a metal sheet (paragraph 13).” Regarding claim 12, Xin et al. further disclose “wherein, the multi-optical-color optically-variable printing device further comprises a drying and curing unit (paragraph 34), and the drying and curing unit is provided on the lower reach of the plurality of optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units, and configured to dry and cure the printing stock (Figure 1).” Regarding claim 13, Xin et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 2 above, including that the optical mask curing device comprises a spatial light modulator (paragraph 36), but fails to specifically mention that “the spatial light modulator further comprises a GLV modulator.” However, GLV modulators are a type of spatial light modulator, and Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage the species “GLV modulator” from the generic disclosure of “spatial light modulators.” Regardless, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the invention, a GLV modulator was a known type of spatial light modulator. It has been held that selection based upon a suitability for an intended purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a GLV modulator as the spatial light modulator of Xin et al. because it is known in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose.
Regarding claim 14, Xin et al. disclose “a multi-optical-color optically-variable printing method (title, abstract), comprising: printing ink or varnish containing a magnetic substance on a printing stock through a screen printing unit (paragraphs 20 and 21), and forming a semi-finished product (paragraph 21); and conveying the semi-finished product to a plurality of optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units (Figure 1), and conducting pre-drying and curing while conducting magnetization orientation to the semi-finished product by the magnetic orientation components of the optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units and a pre-drying and curing devices (paragraph 31), to form optical-color optically-variable patterns on different regions of the printing stock and thus form a multi-optically-variable product (paragraphs 30 and 31); wherein the magnetic orientation components of at least two optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units have different magnetization effects from each other (paragraphs 30 and 31), the pre-drying and curing device comprises an optical mask curing device (paragraphs 36 and 94: ‘spatial light modulator’), the optical mask curing device is fixedly arranged and configured to project a dynamically refreshable variable optical field image-text (paragraph 64: ‘changed in real time’; paragraph 94: ‘variable coding information’).” Regarding the final limitation that “and the variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously move a predetermined distance,” Xin et al. do not specifically mention any registration or alignment procedures. However, since the system shown in Figure 1 is a rotary press, in order for the curing of the desired image to be properly aligned, the projected desired image must be moved in sync with the substrate in order for the image to be correctly aligned. Therefore, Examiner asserts that Xin et al. explicitly disclose that “the variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously move a predetermined distance.” Regardless, one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the filing of the invention, would have been motivated to move the projected variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously a predetermined distance in order to have the desired image correctly created in the substrate. Xin et al. also fail to disclose “wherein when the printing stock is conveyed to the first rearrangement magnetization device and the second rearrangement magnetization device, magnetic pigment sheets in the ink or varnish containing a magnetic substance are rearranged parallel to the printing stock.” However, Xin et al. do teach that allowing the magnetic particles to level through natural settling (that is, they are rearranged parallel to the printing stock) in order to increase the contrast (paragraph 33). Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing another magnetization device to re-level the particles would be faster than allowing them to settle naturally. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Xin et al. with a magnetization device to level the particles. Furthermore, since the contrast is increased by having more consistently level particles as compared to the particles which are changed by the magnetization device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide a rearrangement magnetization device before each of the first and second pattern forming units in order to provide the most contrast between the magnetized areas. Regarding claim 15, Xin et al. further disclose “wherein, the multi-optical-color optically-variable printing method further comprises: after successively conveying the semi-finished product to the plurality of optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units, conveying the multi-optically-variable product to a drying and curing unit (paragraph 34) for drying and curing (paragraph 34).” Regarding claim 16, Xin et al. further disclose “the optical mask curing device is configured to comprise:
a light source (see the source in Figure 8); a controller (paragraph 66, Figure 8), a lens (paragraph 66) and a spatial light modulator (paragraphs 36 and 66); the light source emits light (see the source in Figure 8); the controller for receiving, storing and processing image-text data for projection, and generating a control signal based on the image-text data for projection (paragraph 66); a spatial light modulator for receiving the light emitted by the light source and the control signal, to project a variable optical field image-text through the lens (paragraph 66); wherein, the spatial light modulator comprises one of a digital micro mirror DMD, a liquid crystal spatial light modulator and an acousto-optical modulator (paragraphs 36 and 66).” Xin et al. fail to disclose “wherein, the multi-optical-color optically-variable printing device comprises a sensor, and the sensor is configured to collect the position information and speed information of the printing stock;a spatial light modulator for receiving the light emitted by the light source and the control signal to project the variable optical field image-text through the lens (paragraph 66); wherein, the spatial light modulator comprises one of a digital micro mirror DMD, a liquid crystal spatial light modulator and an acousto-optical modulator (paragraphs 36 and 66).” Xin et al. fail to disclose “the controller receives the position information and the speed information of the semi-finished product collected by the sensor” and “generating a control signal based on the position information, the speed information and the image-text data for projection.” However, the position information and the speed information of the printing stock are necessary information for the spatial light modulator to be able to correctly expose the printing stock, and a sensor is a known means for acquiring such information. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device with a sensor for providing the position and speed information of the printing stock so that the controller can control the spatial light modulator such that the printing stock is correctly exposed. Regarding claim 17, Xin et al. disclose “a multi-optical-color optically-variable printing device comprising: a storage (item 300) and a processor (item 400), wherein, a program or an instruction which is able to run in the processor is stored in the storage (paragraphs 92 and 93), when the processor executes the program or the instruction, the following steps are achieved: printing ink or varnish containing a magnetic substance on a printing stock through a screen printing unit (paragraph 20), and forming a semi-finished product (paragraph 20); conveying the semi-finished product to a plurality of optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units (paragraphs 30 and 31, Figure 1), and conducting pre-drying and curing while conducting magnetization orientation to the semi-finished product by the magnetic orientation components of the optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units and a pre-drying and curing device (paragraph 28), to form optical-color optically-variable patterns in different regions of the printing stock and thus form a multi-optically-variable product (paragraphs 31, 36); wherein, the magnetic orientation components of at least two optical-color optically-variable pattern forming units have different magnetization effects from each other (paragraph 31), the pre-drying and curing device comprises an optical mask curing device (paragraphs 36 and 94: ‘spatial light modulator’), the optical mask curing device is fixedly arranged and configured to project a dynamically refreshable variable optical field image-text (paragraph 64: ‘changed in real time’; paragraph 94: ‘variable coding information’).” Regarding the final limitation that “and the variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously move a predetermined distance,” Xin et al. do not specifically mention any registration or alignment procedures. However, since the system shown in Figure 1 is a rotary press, in order for the curing of the desired image to be properly aligned, the projected desired image must be moved in sync with the substrate in order for the image to be correctly aligned. Therefore, Examiner asserts that Xin et al. explicitly disclose that “the variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously move a predetermined distance.” Regardless, one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the filing of the invention, would have been motivated to move the projected variable optical field image-text and the printing stock synchronously a predetermined distance in order to have the desired image correctly created in the substrate. Regarding the remainder of the claim, the limitation amounts to an intended use of the printing stock; the printing stock is more than capable of being conveyed to first and second rearrangement magnetization devices that rearrange the pigment sheets parallel to the printing stock.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. in view of Kriege et al. (US 2021/0016560). Regarding claims 6 and 19, Xin et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, except “wherein, the pre-drying and curing device comprises multiple optical mask curing devices, and the multiple optical mask curing devices are arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the magnetizing roller.” However, Kriege et al. disclose a similar apparatus (Figures 5 and 9) wherein the curing device consists of multiple sources arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the magnetizing roller (paragraph 79), and is desirable because it provides variability (first sentence of paragraph 79).” Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide multiple curing devices arranged at intervals in the axial direction of the magnetizing roller in order to achieve desired variability. Regarding claims 7 and 20, Xin et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, except “wherein, the pre-drying and curing device further comprises: a curing device adjustment mechanism, wherein the curing device adjustment mechanism comprises a fixing beam, a motor and a guide rail, and the fixing beam extends along the axial direction of the magnetizing roller, the optical mask curing device is provided on the fixing beam, and the motor drives the optical mask curing device to move along the fixing beam.” However, Kriege et al. disclose a similar apparatus (Figures 5 and 8) wherein the curing device is arranged on a crossbar and is movable on the crossbar along the axial direction in order to have their position adjusted (paragraph 76). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Xin et al. with the arrangement of Kriege et al. in order to be able to adjust the curing device position with respect to the magnetizing roller.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Xin et al. do not disclose an optical mask curing device that can project a dynamically refreshable variable optical field image-text is not persuasive. Paragraph 64 clearly teaches that different magnetized patterns can be achieved in the same printing area, and that changes are made in real time. Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “image-text merging”, “omnidirectional merging”) 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 response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instance, the printing device of Xin et al. is modified to arrive at the claimed invention, including, for example, by adding a sensor to collect position and speed information of the printing stock.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s argument that the leveling treatment used by Xin et al. and the rearrangement magnetization devices of the application differ from each other in both operational logic and technical effects is not persuasive, as the rejection sets forth strong reasoning to modify Xin et al. with the magnetization devices.
Additionally, Applicant incorrectly argues that Xin et al. teach demagnetization of the particles. However, what Xin et al. actually teach is eliminating the “magnetization effect”: the magnetization effect being that the particles are arranged in a specific orientation. By letting them settle, due to gravity, etc., they lose this “effect” and become more parallel to the printing stock. The rejection sets forth that one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add magnetization devices to make this process quicker than just waiting for it to occur naturally.
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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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 Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853