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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/IB2023/055871.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21-36 in the reply filed on 05/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 37-40 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
In claim 22 lines 1-2, the term “for example” is deemed vague and confusing as to whether the following limitations are required or not.
In claim 22 lines 2-3, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claim 22 lines 2-4, the phrase “at least 90 cm, preferably from about 120 cm … to about 12 mm” is deemed indefinite as the boundaries of the claim is not discernible. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
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.
Claims 21-22, 26-29, 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206554360 (see English Translation) in view of Malavasi (EP 3517267).
CN’360 teaches a method of fabrication a porcelain ceramic brick (title) in which the brick body has a main body and two side surfaces (abstract) and is equipped with a ceramic decoration layer (p.2 paragraphs 6). Specifically, the reference teaches of decorating the side of the ceramic ground tile (p.2 paragraphs 6-10). However, the reference fails to teach acquiring an image.
Malavasi teaches a method of controlling enamel applied onto a ceramic tile (title) in which a decoration station acquires a digital image taken by video camera (claim 10) and applied to the side of a ceramic tile (0051). It would have been obvious to acquire an image and applying it to the side of a ceramic tile in the process of CN’360 with the expectation of success because Malavasi teaches of using a video camera to acquire a digital image.
Regarding claim 22, CN’360 teaches 6 to 1800 cm (p.2 paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 26, the applicant requires identifying two portions. Malavasi teaches of acquiring an image (claim 10). To acquire two images would have been obvious given Malavasi’s teaching in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, to divide a single digital image into two portion would have been obvious because the same image would be acquired.
Regarding claim 27, Malavasi doesn’t teach a non-continuous image and this meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 28, the applicant requires using the second image. As noted above, Malavasi teaches of acquiring an image for decoration (claim 10, 0051). To utilize the second image would have been obvious if the second image was desired.
Regarding claim 29, Malavasi teaches evaluating an image (abstract).
Regarding claim 33, the applicant requires a first portion of an image. Malavasi teaches of acquiring an image (claim 10). To acquire two images would have been obvious given Malavasi’s teaching in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, to divide a single digital image into two portion would have been obvious because the same image would be acquired.
Regarding claim 34, Malavasi teaches an adjustment (0071).
Regarding claims 35-36, CN/360 teaches ink jet digital printing (p.6 paragraph 5).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206554360 (see English Translation) in view of Malavasi (EP 3517267) and further in view of Dal Col et al. (WO 2012/156797). The combination of CN’360/Malavasi fails to teach scanning.
Dal Col teaches a method of acquiring image using a scanner to reproduce a decoration on the surface (p.6 lines 6-9) of a ceramic tile (p.3 lines 8-12). It would have been obvious to utilize a scanner to acquire the image in the combination with the expectation of success because Dal Col teaches of using a scanner to acquire an image.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN206554360 (see English Translation) in view of Malavasi (EP 3517267) and further in view of Nakamura (2019/0199864). The combination of CN’360/Malavasi fails to teach machine learning.
Nakamura teaches a method of proposing an image print (title) using machine learning to acquire an image for decoration (0017). It would have been obvious to utilize machine learning to acquire the image in the combination with the expectation of success because Nakamura teaches of using a machine learning to acquire an image.
Regarding claim 31, Nakamura teaches of extracting an image (0017), which reads on identifying an image.
Regarding claim 32, Nakamura teaches of acquiring an image parameter indicating the feature of the image print (0018).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-25 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.
It is well known to acquire an image by using a master file as noted in Nakamura et al. (2008/0253683), the prior art references fail to teach or suggest acquiring an image using a master file for use in decorating the side of a ceramic unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights