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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheets of drawings were received on July 13, 2026. These drawings are approved by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is noted that there are several instances throughout the specification in which the applicant refers to particular claim numbers. Since the claim numbers may be renumbered by the Examiner during prosecution and/or allowance of the application, these references to specific claim numbers may become inaccurate and confusing if renumbering occurs. Therefore, it is suggested that the references to the particular claim numbers be deleted from the specification. Particular attention is invited to the following areas of the specification:
Page 1, lines 31-32.
It is noted that the amendment to the specification for page 1, lines 30-34 dated July 13, 2026 do not correct this issue.
Additionally, it is noted that the amendment to page 9, lines 9-21 in the specification amendments dated July 13, 2026 is not accurate in terms of reflecting what the original language was and how it should be changed. Specifically, page 9, line 13 in the original specification was as follows: “detector 28. The first sheet detector 29 is illustrated here as two laterally spaced apart” (emphasis added). In the amendment dated July 13, 2026, the amendments to this line are presented as follows: “detector 28. The first sheet detector [[28]] 29…” (emphasis added). This is not accurate since it indicates insertions and deletions that are not accurate with respect to the language as originally presented. Regardless, in an effort to correct the specification, it is suggested the first occurrence of “detector 28” in line 13 on page 9 of the original specification still needs to be amended to read --detector 29-- since that is how the detector has been illustrated in the drawing Figures.
Additionally, on page 9, line 34, it is suggested that the term “titled” be deleted and replaced with --tilted-- to correct an obvious typographical error.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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 5, 7, and 11-18 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.
With respect to claims 5 and 18, these claims appear to be substantially identical in scope and therefore these claims appear to be duplicates. Additionally, it is noted that line 3 of claim 5 recites “a step of applying a liquid” and then line 4 recites “a coating liquid” and it is not clear if the coating liquid in line 4 is the same liquid that was applied in line 3 or if this is a different liquid. Note that a similar problem occurs in claim 18 with the similar language. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
With respect to claim 7, the language in the last 3 lines of the claim appear to be modifying rather than further limiting the step of reorienting set forth in lines 10-12. Specifically, note lines 10-12 recites “re-orienting the sheet after the step of being treated by the plasma treatment unit” while lines 13-15 recite “the step of re-orienting comprises rotating the sheet upstream of the plasma treatment unit.” It is not clear how these two re-orienting actions can be the same since they appear to be occurring in different points of time and/or locations of the sheet during the transporting method. Based on the context of the specification and claims, it appears that the last 3 lines of the claim are intended to further limit the step of transporting the sheet since the language in these lines is describing rotational movement of the sheet upstream of the plasma treatment unit. Therefore, to correct this problem, it is suggested that the term “re-orienting” in line 13 be deleted and replaced with the term --transporting--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the support structure" in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “a support” was previously recited in line 4. Note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the support structure" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “a support” was previously recited in line 4. Note that consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims. Additionally, in claim 12, the term “the non-zero angle” in line 15 has no proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 13, the term “the printing assembly” in line 5 has no proper antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 14, it is suggested that the term --the-- be inserted before the term “at least one registration drive” in lines 2-3 and it is suggested that the term “a registration unit” in line 3 be deleted and replaced with --the registration unit-- since the at least one drive of the registration unit was previously recited in claim 12.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (DE 10 2004 018 673 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 4, Meyer teaches a method for transporting sheets of print media between electrodes 5, 6, 14, of a plasma treatment unit 4 of a printer (1, Figs. 1-2), comprising a support structure 8 spaced apart from one of the electrodes 6 by a gap (see Fig. 3), wherein the method comprises the step of:
transporting the sheet towards the electrodes 5, 6, 14 so that a forward facing edge of the sheet and an upstream edge of at least one of the electrodes are at an angle with one another, as the sheet passes over said at least one electrode 6, 14, and the gap at least partially formed by an edge of said at least one electrode 6, 14, wherein said at least one electrode 14 extends across the full width of the sheet, as shown in particular in Figure 3 and described in paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of the English language translation of Meyer.
While the exact angle of the sheet relative to the electrode has not been explicitly taught in Meyer, it would appear that the angle between the sheet and the upstream edge of the electrode as shown in Figures 3-4 would be greater than 5° or 10° as recited. However, in any event, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to provide an angle of greater than 5° or 10° between the electrode and the sheet in Meyer to yield the predictable result of providing efficient transport of the sheet through the plasma device while avoiding the passage of the suction belt through the treatment gap.
With respect to claim 2, Meyer teaches the step of applying a negative pressure (i.e., via a vacuum source as described in paragraph [0023] to a surface of the sheet facing the gap for drawing the sheet against the support structure 8 which together with the edge of one of the electrodes 5, 6, 14, forms the gap. Particular attention is invited to paragraph [0023] of the English language translation.
With respect to claim 3, Meyer teaches the step of transporting the sheet between the electrodes 5, 6 in a transport direction, so that a width in a lateral direction of a portion of the sheet over the upstream edge of the at least one of the electrodes increases from at least from when the sheet initially moves over said upstream edge. Note as the sheet is transported in the direction indicated in Figures 3-4 of Meyer, because the electrodes are arranged obliquely to the transport direction, as the sheet moves over the upstream edge of the electrode, the sheet width in the transverse direction that is covering the electrode will increase and thus, the arrangement in Meyer meets the claim language as recited.
With respect to claim 8, Meyer teaches wherein the upstream edge of the at least one of the electrodes 5, 6, 14, extends at the angle with respect to a lateral direction perpendicular to a transport direction of the sheet, as shown in Figures 3-4.
With respect to claim 9, Meyer teaches wherein a leading edge of the sheet is substantially parallel to the lateral direction as it passes over the upstream edge of the at least one of the electrodes, as described in paragraphs [0025] and [0027].
With respect to claim 10, Meyer teaches wherein the gap is a substantially empty gap positioned at the upstream edge of the at least one of the electrodes 5, 6, 14, and the method further comprises a portion of the sheet first passing over the gap before reaching said electrode, as shown in Figures 3-4 in particular. Note that the gap in Meyer can be considered to be the space between the transport means 8 and the electrodes 14 on the upstream edge of the electrode 14.
With respect to claims 11 and 17, Meyer teaches a printer (Fig. 1) comprising a plasma treatment unit 4 with:
a pair of spaced apart electrodes 5, 6, 14 for generating a plasma between them; and
a transport mechanism comprising:
a support structure 8 spaced apart from one of the electrodes 6, 14 by a gap;
a suction arrangement (i.e., the suction source described in paragraph [0023]) for applying a negative pressure for drawing a sheet against at least the support structure 8; and
a drive for transporting the sheet in a transport direction over the support structure, over the gap, and over the one of the electrodes (note the system inherently includes a drive for operating the transport means),
wherein the printer is configured, so that the drive transports the sheet over the one of the electrodes at an angle relative to a forward facing edge of the sheet with respect to an upstream edge of the one of the electrodes, as shown in Figures 2-4 and described in paragraphs [0021]-[0027] of the English language translation. Note that the one of the electrodes 6, 14 extends across the full width of the sheet, as described in particular with respect to the embodiment of Figure 3 in paragraphs [0025]-[0026].
While the exact angle of the sheet relative to the electrode has not been explicitly taught in Meyer, it would appear that the angle between the sheet and the upstream edge of the electrode as shown in Figures 3-4 would be greater than 5° or 10° as recited. However, in any event, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention to provide an angle of greater than 5° or 10° between the electrode and the sheet in Meyer to yield the predictable result of providing efficient transport of the sheet through the plasma device while avoiding the passage of the suction belt through the treatment gap.
With respect to claim 15, Meyer teaches wherein the upstream edge of the one of the electrodes 5, 6, 14, is positioned substantially at the angle with respect to a lateral direction perpendicular to the transport direction, so that a forward facing edge of the sheet when parallel to the lateral direction passes over said upstream edge substantially at an angle therewith, as shown in Figures 3-4 and described in paragraphs [0025] and [0027].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (DE 10 2004 018 673 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 8-11, 15, and 17 above, and further in view of Kaneda et al. (JP 2022-106645 A).
With respect to claim 6, Meyer teaches a method for transporting sheets of print media between electrodes of a plasma treatment unit of a printer and treating the sheet by means of the plasma treatment unit having all of the method steps as recited with the exception of the step of reorienting the sheet after being treated by the plasma treatment unit, so that one of its edges is substantially parallel to a lateral direction perpendicular to a transport direction of the sheet. Note that Kaneda et al. teaches it is well known in the art to provide a step of reorienting a sheet leaving a treatment unit, as shown by the alignment element 32 positioned after the treatment unit 26 in Figure 2 and described in paragraphs [0012]-[0014]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a step or reorienting the sheet after the treatment process as taught by Kaneda et al. in the process of Meyer to insure the sheet is in appropriate position for the print/coating processes that will follow.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (DE 10 2004 018 673 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 8-11, 15, and 17 above, and further in view of Maeda (JP 2022-169970 A).
With respect to claim 16, Meyer teaches a printer having all of the structure as recited but is silent with respect to whether it includes at least one registration drive of a registration unit for adjusting an orientation of the sheet with respect to the transport direction, wherein the at least one registration drive is configured for orienting a leading edge of the sheet, so that the leading edge of the sheet is substantially parallel to the lateral direction as the leading edge of the sheet passes over the upstream edge of the at least one of the electrodes. However, note that the provision of a registration drive of a registration unit for adjusting the orientation of a sheet after the sheet is picked up from a paper feed table and before the sheet is printed or otherwise processed is well known in the art, as exemplified by the teaching of the paper feed roller 12 and registration rollers 14 located after the feed table 11 and before the printing structure 3, as described in paragraphs [0016]-[0022], [0045] of Maeda and shown in Figure 2. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a registration unit/drive as taught by Maeda in the printer of Meyer to insure that the sheet is not skewed before it is fed to the plasma treatment unit.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (DE 10 2004 018 673 A1) as applied to claims 1-4, 8-11, 15, and 17 above, and further in view of Hollands et al. (US 2016/0152046 A1).
With respect to claims 5 and 18, Meyer teaches a method for transporting sheets of print media in a plasma treatment unit of a printer as recited but is silent with respect to the details of the printing method and whether it includes the step of applying a liquid on the treated sheet, wherein a coating liquid is applied directly on the treated sheet, followed by the application of color inks on the coating liquid, wherein the coating liquid is a primer liquid. However, Holland et al. teaches it is well known in the art to print a sheet by treating the sheet with a plasma treatment unit, followed by applying a liquid primer to the sheet, followed by application of color inks on the primer layer. See, for example, the plasma treatment unit 4 followed by the primer application unit 5 followed by the printer 9, as shown in Figure 1 and described in paragraph [0057]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Meyer to include plasma treatment followed by primer application followed by printing as this is a well-known process for printing on a sheet to provide better ink adhesion of a variety of substrates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 7 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a method for transporting a sheet of print media between electrodes of a plasma treatment unit of a printer comprising all the steps as recited, in combination with and particularly including, steps of transporting the sheet towards the electrodes, treating the sheet with the plasma treatment unit, and re-orienting the sheet after the step of being treated by the plasma treatment unit, wherein the step of transporting the sheet comprises rotating the sheet upstream of the plasma treatment unit so that one edge of the sheet is at a non-zero angle with a lateral direction of the printer and the forward facing edge of the sheet and an upstream edge of at least of the one electrodes are at an angle greater than 5° with one another.
With respect to claim 12 in particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a printer comprising a plasma treatment unit having all of the structure as recited, in combination with and particularly including, at least one registration drive of a registration unit for adjusting an orientation of the sheet with respect to the transport direction, wherein the at least one registration drive is configured for: orienting the sheet, so that the forward facing edge of the sheet is at the non-zero angle with respect to the upstream edge of the one of the electrodes when passing between the electrodes; and orienting the sheet, so that the forward facing edge of the sheet is substantially perpendicular to the transport direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, and 15-18, applicant argues that Meyer does not teach the at least one electrode extending across the full width of the sheet as recited in the amended claims 1 and 11. The Examiner disagrees with this argument and points out that Meyer teaches two different embodiments in Figures 3 and 4 and the embodiment of Figure 3 of Meyer in particular illustrates a single electrode extending over the entire working width of the device, as described in paragraph [0025] of the English language translation. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Meyer renders obvious the method and printer as recited in claims 1 and 11 and is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights