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 .
This office cation is in response to applicant’s claims filed October 18, 2024. Claims 1-11 are pending.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (EP 3674083) in view of Duke (US 8,931,865).
Xu teaches a printing device for printing fabrics (paragraph 0043-0045)comprising a transport belt including an adhesive layer for supporting a fabric and transporting the fabric in a transport direction wherein a first surface of a fabric is printed (imaging target printed in printing section) and the printed front (first) surface of the fabric faces the adhesive layer of a guiding (transport) belt and is spread on the guiding belt (pressing section that presses the fabric to the adhesive layer; paragraph 0033-0035, step 1) a printing section that prints an image on the back (second) surface of the fabric transported on the guiding belt, the second surface being on an opposite side of the first surface (paragraph 0035, steps 2-3) and an alignment section wherein the image from the first surface is alignment with the image from the second surface and a correction section that corrects the image and printing position based on the data from the alignment (paragraph 0035, steps 4-6, paragraph 0040).
Xu does not teach the infrared imaging.
Duke teaches image capturing systems for aligning images printed on the front and back side of a receiver (column 1, lines 24-48; column 2, lines 32-67;column 3, lines 1-17) wherein the imaging system can emit infrared or visible light ((column 22, lines 40-46). Duke teaches the illumination system provides light to either side of the receiver and includes a transmitted illumination pattern and reflected illumination pattern (column 9, lines 35-57). Duke teaches the infrared illumination device is removable, so it is attachable and detachable as mounting can be used for attaching and detaching (column 21, lines 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the printing devices and methods of Xu by using an infrared imaging section to capture an image of an imaging target provided on the first surface of a fabric receiver by using infrared rays with respect to the fabric transported on the guide belt as Duke teaches infrared imaging of the receiver surfaces of a transported receiver provides an effective means of aligning printing on the top and bottom surfaces of a double sided printed substrate. Xu clearly teaches using a fabric for double sided printing which is transported on a guide belt such that printing is performed on both the front and back sides of the fabric and the need for an alignment mechanism to ensure proper positioning of the front and back side prints. Using the known method of infrared imaging to ensure proper alignment of the prints on the front and back surfaces of a transported fabric would be obvious as Duke teaches infrared imaging provides efficient means for effective pattern alignment on opposite surfaces of a receiver in double sided printing.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,2,9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,5,7 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/919538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim similar devices and methods comprising transport belts with fabric adhered to them printed on a first face and infrared imaging for printing on the second face of the fabric with a correction section.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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 prior art do not teach or fairly suggest the transport bely reflects infrared rays or allows infrared rays to pass.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights