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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 8 recites specific claim numbers, which is improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19 and 22-26 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.
Specifically in regards to Claim 19, the use of semicolons makes it impossible to logically discern the limitations.
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
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) 16-18, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Garsse (WO 2022096398).
In regards to Claim 16, Van Garsse teaches a method of decorating a hide (Title; Claim 1) comprising the following steps:
selecting a digital layout (Detail 200) comprising a digital contour of the hide (Paragraph 41), a first printing element (Detail 120), and a second printing element (Detail 130);
applying the hide on a support of an inkjet printer (Paragraph 40);
adapting the digital layout to match the digital contour with the applied hide (when the hide and digital layout match, the adapting is simply applying the hide on the support); and
decorating the applied hide by printing the adapted layout with the inkjet printer, wherein the step of adapting comprises rotating the first and second printing element by a same angle (zero).
In regards to Claim 17, Van Garsse teaches the step of adapting comprises additional the step of translating the first and second printing element by a same distance (zero).
In regards to Claim 18, Van Garsse teaches the step of adapting comprises additional the step of scaling the first and second printing element by a same scaling factor (zero).
In regards to Claim 27, Van Garsse teaches the digital layout and adapted digital layout are defined in a page description language and wherein the adapted digital layout is rendered by a raster image processor to a print-ready file for printing on the applied hide (Paragraph 42).
In regards to Claim 30, Van Garsse teaches the inkjet printer is a single pass inkjet printer having an inkjet head with a nozzle row used in the decoration-step and wherein the hide is applied on the support whereby the back of the hide is parallel to said nozzle row (Paragraphs 70, 71).
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) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Garsse.
In regards to Claims 28 and 29, while Van Garsse essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, including the dying of a hide, it fails to specially teach the type of hide to be decorated. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have decorated a crusty or unfinished hide, so as to avoid issues with the inkjet application. The process of finishing a hide can create an unfriendly surface for decorating.
In regards to the hide being either a belly, butt, double butt, shoulder, double shoulder side, or whole hide, this listing is the basic working group of all possible hide portions used in industry. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the hide would be one of these. It should also be noted that Applicant provides no criticality or unexpected results arising from the hide being one of these, and as such, the choice is considered obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least De Roeck (WO 2020225050) Abstract, Figures, Felber (EP 2527103) Figure 1, Blaimschein et al (EP 0897992) Figure 1, and Bruder et al (DE 4100534) Figure 6e teach element similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights