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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11-20 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 1 requires a foil transferring apparatus, while claim 11 requires a transferring apparatus capable of working upon film, which are the same, without any other differences.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITABASHI et al. (WO 2021/060129; citations to US 2022/0289520).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, ITABASHI teaches a foil transfer apparatus comprising a housing with an opening having a receiver that can receive a cartridge having a supply reel, a winding reel, and a memory storage storing information indicating a type of the foil film, a transferring part, and a controller (paras. 226, 230, and 337. ITABASHI does not teach that the controller is capable of changing an amount of heat applied per unit area to the film by the transferring part based on film type information obtained from a cartridge memory. ITABASHI teaches executing the layer transfer step most suitable to the film used based on information from the cartridge memory (para. 344) such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to control increasing or decreasing the heat applied to the film in order to raise the bonding temperature to that most suitable to the bonding temperature of the film being used.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, ITABASHI teaches an electric contact in the housing that can contact an electric contact on the memory and the controller is in the housing, capable of receiving information from the memory (para. 342).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, ITABASHI teaches the memory from which the controller operates comprises usage history information (para. 336) from which the controller can determine information.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, ITABASHI teaches the memory comprises usage information to provide to the controller (para. 336), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the information to stop the transfer process when the tape expires.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, ITABASHI teaches the transferring part comprises a heater, heating roller, and pressure roller (paras. 703-704).
Claim(s) 3-5, 10, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ITABASHI as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of ICHIKAWA et al. (JP 2020-065603; citations to US 2023/0026662).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, ITABASHI does not teach the controller is configured to change the amount of heat applied per unit area of film by setting a target temperature. ICHIKAWA teaches another film heat transferring apparatus comprising a controller that is set to change an amount of heat applied to the film by setting a target temperature (paras. 81-83), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the control of ITABASHI to control an amount of heat applied based upon a setting a target temperature because such was a common manner of controlling heat in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 14-15, ITABASHI does not explicitly teach the memory of the cartridge being worked upon stores color or manufacturer information from which the controller sets the target temperature, but discloses the memory stores specification information (para. 336), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that a material specification would include color and information related to a manufacturer in order to provide a complete description of the film being used.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, ITABASHI teaches a foil transfer apparatus comprising a housing with an opening having a receiver that can receive a cartridge having a supply reel, a winding reel, and a memory storage storing information indicating a type of the foil film, a transferring part, and a controller (paras. 226, 230, and 337. ITABASHI does not teach that the controller is capable of changing an amount of heat applied per unit area to the film by the transferring part based on film type information obtained from a cartridge memory. ITABASHI teaches executing the layer transfer step most suitable to the film used based on information from the cartridge memory (para. 344) such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to control increasing or decreasing the heat applied to the film in order to raise the bonding temperature to that most suitable to the bonding temperature of the film being used. ICHIKAWA teaches another film heat transferring apparatus comprising a controller that is set to change an amount of heat applied to the film by setting a target temperature (paras. 81-83), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the control of ITABASHI to control an amount of heat applied based upon a setting a target temperature because such was a common manner of controlling heat in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the heating roller includes a central region and end region where the heater includes a first heater in the central region that can heat the central region more strongly than the end region and a second heater in the end region that can heat the end region more strongly than the central region that can be controlled based on information indicating the width and position of the film obtained from the memory.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights