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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/7/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 5/7/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Bollstrom only describes the change in glossiness after plasma treatment, and does not treat the glossiness of the substrate as a control parameter for corona discharge” (page 4 of remarks). Applicant concludes, then, that the obviousness rejection is improper because “Bollstrom and independent claim 1 are opposite in terms of causality.”
While Examiner does not dispute the fact that Bollstrom teaches the relationship between a change in glossiness and wettability after plasma treatment, it was not Examiner’s intent to rely upon Bollstrom as teaching glossiness as a control parameter for treatment. In fact, the Office Action relied upon Matsumoto to teach that corona treatments are based on such control parameters as medium wettability. Rather, Bollstrom was relied upon for the teaching that medium wettability and medium glossiness are inversely correlated upon such surface treatments. With the knowledge that glossiness decreases as wettability increases, an artisan is able to likewise perform corona treatment control according to an input medium wettability or, albeit inversely, glossiness. In other words, it would have been obvious to perform the corona treatments using either wettability or glossiness as a control parameter.
In light of the above, Examiner has found no reason to withdraw the previously applied rejection(s). Moreover, an updated search has also uncovered the teachings of Arazeki, which detects the glossiness type detection of the medium to be processed, and controls corona discharge treatment according to a desired gloss level of the medium. Please also see the newly applied prior art rejections based on Arazeki’s teachings.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Arazeki (JP 2016097572A).
For citations, please consult the English translation of Arazeki made of record with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1:
Arazeki discloses an inkjet image forming apparatus comprising:
a head unit (recording head 6aa) that ejects ink on a printing base material (processing target medium P) conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction (Figs. 1-2);
a corona discharge treatment unit (medium reformer 4) disposed on an upstream side of the head unit in the conveyance direction (Figs. 1-2) and performing a corona discharge on the printing base material (“plasma can be generated by … a corona discharge”: page 10); and
a control part (control unit 31 + operation display unit 36 / “sensor”) including an input unit (36 / “sensor”) to which a type/glossiness of the printing base material is input (“irradiates the surface … and analyzes the interference spectrum of the reflected light to identify the type”: pages 14-15) and controlling a discharge amount of the corona discharge performed by the corona discharge treatment unit (pages 15-17),
wherein the control part controls the corona discharge treatment unit so as to perform the corona discharge at a predetermined discharge amount (plasma energy is set according to a LUT: page 15) when a glossiness of the printing base material input from the input unit is a predetermined value or higher (“adjust the plasma energy applied … in accordance with the required glossiness”: page 17).
Regarding claim 5:
Arazeki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the printing base material is a plastic film (“OHP sheet, synthetic resin film”: page 4).
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.
Claim(s) 1 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) including an input unit (“input unit”) to which a wettability/type of the printing base material is input (paragraphs 78, 84) and 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 corona discharge treatment unit so as to perform the corona discharge at a predetermined discharge amount when a wettability/type of the printing base material input from the input unit is a predetermined value (“whether or not to apply the plasma treatment” & “whether or not the wettability … fall within a ‘printable’ range”: paragraphs 54, 77, 85).
Matsumoto et al. do not expressly disclose that the corona discharge treatment unit performs the corona discharge when a glossiness of the printing base material is a predetermined value or higher.
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), and therefore teaches the inverse relationship between material wettability and glossiness.
Because Bollstrom et al. establishes the inverse relationship between base material wettability and glossiness as it relates to surface treatments, 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 the corona discharge treatment unit to decrease glossiness in place of controlling to increase wettability. In other words, it would have been obvious to perform the corona discharge when the glossiness of the printing base material is a predetermined value or higher instead of when the wettability of the printing base material is a predetermined value or lower. 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 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).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arazeki (JP 2016097572A) in view of Matsuzawa et al. (US 2006/0017759 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Arazeki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the control part controls the corona discharge treatment unit so as to perform the corona discharge when a 20 degree glossiness of the printing base material is 25 or higher.
However, Matsuzawa et al. teach that the 20 degree glossiness of a 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 Arazeki’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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights