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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of CLAIMS 1-10 in the reply filed on 02 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-23 are withdrawn and cancelled by applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected INVENTION, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 October 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03 October 2024 are accepted.
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 § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (JP 2007/008110 A), hereinafter Tanaka, using a machine translation.
With regard to Claim 1, Tanaka discloses a single pass printing method for a spherical ball (¶0011; Figs. 1-8), the method comprising:
rotating the spherical ball on a central axis of the ball, printing an image on the ball with a plurality of printing nozzles while the ball is rotating (¶0011; Figs. 1-8);
wherein: the image on the ball is defined by an image area profile comprising a top boundary line and a bottom boundary line (¶0011; Figs. 1-8; strip shaped sections);
the image is printed by printing ink droplets correlating to pixels arranged in consecutive image lines, each image line defined by a plurality of the pixels disposed between the top boundary line and the bottom boundary line, and each pixel comprising at least one of the ink droplets that forms the image (¶0011, pg. 17, dots make up the image in a dot pattern, the arrangement of dots constituting the image, pgs. 4-6; Figs. 1-8); and the ink droplets are printed by:
applying the pixels to a distorted pixel map comprising pixel areas corresponding with the pixels (pgs. 5-6; Figs. 1-8; the image appears distorted in the periphery) and comprising a plurality of undistorted pixel areas (pgs. 5-6, image distorted on outer periphery and undistorted in inner section, pg. 8 ¶0008) and a plurality of pixel areas distorted in at least one of a width direction and a height direction (pgs. 6-9), selectively removing pixels areas from the distorted pixel map (¶0009, pg. 12, step d, correcting distortion of the image on the spherical print surface by adding blank spaces between the inks for image printing arranged in the y direction; pg. 16, by adding blank spaces, the pitch of the ink dots that make up the image aligned in the y direction can be made to appear wider correcting the distortion; ¶0012; pgs. 21-23; 25-26; ¶0022, pg. 36), printing the ink droplets based on the distorted pixel map with the pixel areas removed (¶0012; pgs. 21-23; 25-26).
Although, Tanaka does not explicitly disclose “removing” pixel areas from the distorted pixel map, the effect of adding blank spaces to the distorted pixel map is equivalent to “removing” pixel areas, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that adding blank spaces to the distorted pixel map, thereby widening the pitch of the ink dots is akin to thinning or removing image pixels, since blank spaces are non-image pixels of the image.
With regard to Claim 2, Tanaka further discloses wherein a center location of each pixel is defined by Cartesian coordinates in a polar coordinate system (Fig. 4) where: r is the radius of the ball in millimeters (Figs. 1-8; pg. 24); the x-y plane is defined by a first central plane of the ball perpendicular to the central axis (Figs. 1-2), the x-z plane is defined by a second central plane of the ball perpendicular to the first central plane (Figs. 1-2), and a center point for the image area profile in the Cartesian coordinates is defined by an intersection of the ball's equator about the central axis and a vertical center line of the image area profile (¶0024; pg. 38).
With regard to Claim 9, Tanaka further discloses wherein the distorted pixel map comprises pixel area rows defined by pixel areas corresponding to pixels having the same Z- coordinate value (pg. 26, distorted areas are locations where ink dots are continuously aligned; pg. 43-44).
With regard to Claim 10, Tanaka further discloses wherein a number of pixels areas removed from a pixel area row of the distorted pixel map is based on the Z-coordinate value of the pixels corresponding to the pixel area row (¶0009, pg. 12, step d, correcting distortion of the image on the spherical print surface by adding blank spaces between the inks for image printing arranged in the y direction; pg. 16, by adding blank spaces, the pitch of the ink dots that make up the image aligned in the y direction can be made to appear wider correcting the distortion; ¶0012; pgs. 21-23; 25-26; ¶0022, pg. 36).
Although, Tanaka does not explicitly disclose “removing” pixel areas from the distorted pixel map, the effect of adding blank spaces to the distorted pixel map is equivalent to “removing” pixel areas, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that adding blank spaces to the distorted pixel map, thereby widening the pitch of the ink dots is akin to thinning or removing image pixels, since blank spaces are non-image pixels of the image.
With regard to Claim 19, Tanaka further discloses wherein the first image is a non- numerical image (¶0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability of Claims 3-6 is that applicants invention includes a single pass printing method reciting z-coordinate and y-coordinate values, respectively, as claimed. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claims 7-8 are allowable because they depend from Claim 6.
Claim 10 is 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 primary reasons for allowability of Claim 10 is that applicants invention includes a single-pass printing method for a spherical ball wherein: a first number of pixel areas is removed from a first pixel area row corresponding to pixels having a first Z-coordinate value, a second number of pixel areas is removed from a second pixel area row corresponding to pixels having a second Z-coordinate value, wherein the absolute value of the first Z-coordinate value is greater than the absolute value of the second Z-coordinate value, and the first number is greater than the second number. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 11 is allowable because it depends from Claim 10.
Claim 12 is 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 primary reasons for allowability of Claim 12 is that applicants invention includes a single-pass printing method for a spherical ball wherein no pixel areas are removed from pixel area rows of the distorted pixel map defined by pixel areas corresponding to pixels having a Z-coordinate value between -1.5 mm and 1.5 mm. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 13 is 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 primary reasons for allowability of Claim 13 is that applicants invention includes a single-pass printing method for a spherical ball wherein: the image is a first image and the method comprises printing a second image while the ball is rotating; the second image is defined by a second image area profile comprising a second top boundary line and a second bottom boundary line ; the second image is printed by printing ink droplets correlating to pixels arranged in consecutive image lines, each image line defined by a plurality of the pixels disposed between the second top boundary line and the second bottom boundary line, and each pixel comprising at least one of the ink droplets that forms the second image; and the ink droplets of the second image are printed by: applying the pixels to a second distorted pixel map comprising pixel areas corresponding with the pixels of the second image area profile and comprising a plurality of undistorted pixel areas and a plurality of pixel areas distorted in at least one of a width direction and a height direction, selectively removing pixel areas from the second distorted pixel map, and printing the ink droplets of the second image based on the second distorted pixel map with the pixel areas removed. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claims 14-18 are allowable because they depend from Claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6:00 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights