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 .
Final Rejection
The applicant’s amendment of 08/12/2026 necessitated a new ground of rejection as follows below:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
* Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/860930. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention is fully encompassed by the claims of the copending Applications.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if provided a Terminal Disclaimer. These claims would be allowable because the prior art references of record fail to teach or suggest a method for printing on an object that is not paper by a digital printing facility comprising multiple ink application units for applying printing ink of different colours, the method comprising providing a device configured to prevent or reduce a build-up of condensation on ink application units, and the build-up on condensation on the ink application units is prevented or reduced by the device, the device further comprising a temperature control device and an electrical control unit, the temperature control device being configured to influence a temperature of the ink application units and the electrical control unit being configured to control the temperature control device in such a way that the ink application units are at different temperatures, wherein the temperatures of the ink application units increase in the feed direction and the temperatures of two adjacent ink application units differ by at least 0.5° C. and at most 1.5° C., wherein the temperatures of a first ink application unit in the feed direction and a last ink application unit in the feed direction differ by at most 10° C in the combination as claimed.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been carefully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 comments considered necessarily by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the Issue Fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the Issue Fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Anh Vo whose telephone number is (571) 272-2262. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:30 A.M.to 7:30 P.M..
The fax number of this Group 2800 is (571) 273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 431-0716. The fax phonenumber for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights