CTNF 18/893,900 CTNF 81217 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 2015/0035918 A1) in view of Bollstrom et al. (US 2017/0065974 A1) . Regarding claim 1: Matsumoto et al. disclose an ink jet image forming apparatus comprising: a head unit (ink jet recording unit 40) that ejects ink on a printing base material (M1: paragraph 75) conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction (Fig. 2); a corona discharge treatment unit (acidification unit 10: corona discharge is one example, per paragraphs 60-61) disposed on an upstream side of the head unit in the conveyance direction (Fig. 2) and performing a corona discharge on the printing base material (paragraphs 60-61, 64); and a control part (control unit 15) controlling a discharge amount of the corona discharge performed by the corona discharge treatment unit (paragraphs 55-58 & Fig. 3), wherein the control part controls the discharge amount based on a wettability/type of the printing base material (paragraphs 46, 58, 85, 103). Matsumoto et al. do not expressly disclose that the discharge amount is controlled based on a glossiness of the printing base material. However, Bollstrom et al. teach that surface treatment of a printing base material may have the effect of increasing wettability (“hydrophilicity”) and thus also decreasing gloss (paragraphs 165, 168). Because Bollstrom et al. teach a relationship between base material wettability and gloss, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of invention, to modify Matsumoto et al.’s invention so as to control discharge amount based on the glossiness of the printing base material instead of the wettability. Doing so would continue to achieve the desired and expected result of controllably performing corona treatment so as to make the printing base material printable. Regarding claim 2: Matsumoto et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Matsumoto et al. also disclose that the control part includes an input unit to which a wettability of printing base material is input (via the medium type: paragraphs 78, 84). Therefore, in Matsumoto et al.’s modified apparatus, it would have been obvious to input the glossiness of the of the printing base material. Regarding claim 3: Matsumoto et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Matsumoto et al. also disclose that the control part controls the corona discharge treatment unit so as to perform the corona discharge when a wettability of the printing base material is a predetermined value or lower (paragraphs 54, 77, 85). Therefore, in Matusmoto et al.’s modified apparatus, it would have been obvious to perform the corona discharge when a glossiness of the printing base material is a predetermined value or higher. Regarding claim 5: Matsumoto et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Matsumoto et al. also disclose that the printing base material is a plastic film (paragraph 103) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. as modified by Bollstrom et al ., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuzawa et al. (US 2006/0017759 A1) . Regarding claim 4: Matsumoto et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Matsumoto et al. also disclose that the control part controls the corona discharge treatment unit so as to perform the corona discharge when the printing base material is not printable (paragraph 85). However, Matsuzawa et al. teach that the 20 degree glossiness of a printing base material should be less than 45, so as to enable image formation without causing color turbidity (paragraph 164). Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Matsumoto et al.’s apparatus such that the control part controls corona discharge treatment when the 20 degree glossiness of the printing base material is greater than 45 degrees, as suggested by Matsuzawa et al. Communication with the USPTO Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST. 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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. SHELBY L. FIDLER Primary Examiner Art Unit 2853 /SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/893,900 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/893,900 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/893,900 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/893,900 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/893,900 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights