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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/206 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “oner” in the penultimate line should be “one.” Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/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.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the reading area” and “said scanning sensor” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the reading area” in the third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the reading area” in the seventh to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 is rejected based upon its dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2023/0126302). Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto et al. disclose “a machine for checking flexographic printing plates (abstract, paragraphs 206-207), comprising: a base (Figure 18, item 190), a support plane (implicitly, there is a plane on top of item 190), associated with said base, for at least one printing plate, the surface or physical characteristics of which are to be checked and controlled, a control unit (item 17), a surface scanning unit (item 380) of the at least one printing plate to be checked, said scanning unit being operatively connected to said control unit, and configured to acquire a real image of the at least one printing plate to be checked (paragraphs 206-207), said control unit being configured to automatically compare said real image of the at least one printing plate, and a reference image corresponding to the creation file of a printing plate (paragraphs 206-207), so as to highlight any differences between the real image of the at least one printing plate and the corresponding reference image (paragraphs 206-207) to automatically recognize any physical or superficial defects in the analyzed object at least one printing plate in order to validate it or not (paragraph 206-207) to avoid the use of incorrect or worn plates (paragraph 206-207), reducing in any case, in all these circumstances, energy consumption and therefore CO2 (this is implicit in the method of Yamamoto et al.), so that the operator is able to easily ascertain whether a certain printing plate is affected by manufacturing defects of such magnitude as to compromise the execution of the printing job, or jobs, for which it was created (paragraphs 206-207).” Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto et al. further disclose “said scanning unit is fixed with respect to said base, and said at least one printing plate is movable with respect to said scanning unit by means of a drag system (see the configuration of 380 in Figure 18).” Examiner notes that the plate of Yamamoto et al. is more than capable of being moved by a drag system. Regarding claims 3-6, and 10-12, the claims are directed to an optional embodiment and do not recite any structure which defines over Yamamoto et al.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto et al. further disclose “wherein said support plane for at least one printing plate comprises at least one sheet of transparent or translucent material (Examiner interprets whatever is used as the supporting structure on 190 to be a transparent material, as it is not specified to what form of radiation material is required to be transparent; every known material is transparent to at least some form of radiation).
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) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostalski (US 2021/0146677) in view of Fujie et al. (US 4573798).
Regarding claim 14, Rostalski discloses “a machine for checking flexographic printing plates (abstract), comprising: a base (item 14), a support plane (implicitly, there is a support plane wrapped around the cylinder 14), associated with said base, for at least one printing plate, the surface or physical characteristics of which are to be checked and controlled, a control unit (item 22), a surface scanning unit (items 18 and 20, at least) of the at least one printing plate to be checked, said scanning unit being operatively connected to said control unit, and configured to acquire a real image of the at least one printing plate to be checked (paragraph 31), said control unit being configured to automatically compare said real image of the at least one printing plate, and a reference image corresponding to the creation file of a printing plate (paragraph 44), so as to highlight any differences between the real image of the at least one printing plate and the corresponding reference image to automatically recognize any physical or superficial defects in the analyzed object at least one printing plate in order to validate it or not to avoid the use of incorrect or worn plates (paragraph 44), reducing in any case, in all these circumstances, energy consumption and therefore CO2 (this is implicit in the method of Rostalski), so that the operator is able to easily ascertain whether a certain printing plate is affected by manufacturing defects of such magnitude as to compromise the execution of the printing job, or jobs, for which it was created (paragraph 44), wherein said scanning unit comprises a carriage (item 20), and guide means for said carriage (paragraph 73), wherein said scanning unit comprises at least one scanning sensor (item 18) and a lighting device (item 16) of the reading area of the scanning sensor, wherein said lighting device comprises one or more first lighting bodies positioned in the proximity of said scanner (item 16, Figure 1).” Rostalski fails to disclose that the one or more first lighting bodies are mounted on said carriage. However, Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing same angle of incidence and the same intensity for the light from source 16 on the surface of the plate 12 to be received by the camera 18 would provide more consistent and/or precise measurement, and that providing the light source on the same carriage as the camera would allow for this to take place. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the light source 16 on the same carriage as the camera 18 in order to allow for more consistent and/or precise measurements.
Rostalski also fails to disclose “that the guide means are provided in said base.”However, Fujie et al. disclose that in a scanning apparatus of an engraved film similar to a printing plate, a flatbed arrangement (Figure 1b) is equivalent to a cylindrical one (Figure 21; column 14, lines 47-column 15, line 4). In the flatbed arrangement, the guide rails are contained in the body and below the engraved film (Figure 1b). It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a flatbed arrangement in the system of Rostalski instead of the cylindrical arrangement in order to check the flexographic plate because it has been shown in the art to be equivalent for the same purpose. Regarding claim 15, Rostalski further discloses “comprising a user interface (item 28 and/or 30) operationally connected to, and interlocked with, said control unit, comprising at least one screen or monitor (item 30), said user interface being configured to show, superimposed or in transparency, or with similar solutions (paragraphs 43-44), the real image of the at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or single sheet, and the respective reference image (paragraph 44), in which any differences or defects are automatically shown and highlighted by closed lines, or circles, which enclose the areas of the screen concerned or with other similar solutions (paragraph 44: Examiner interprets whatever the ‘comparing’ of Rostalski is to be a ‘similar solution’), in order to validate the product or not (paragraph 44).” Regarding claim 16, Rostalski discloses “a machine for checking flexographic printing plates (abstract), comprising: a base (item 14), a support plane (implicitly, there is a support plane wrapped around the cylinder 14), associated with said base, for at least one printing plate, the surface or physical characteristics of which are to be checked and controlled, a control unit (item 22), a surface scanning unit (items 18 and 20, at least) of the at least one printing plate to be checked, said scanning unit being operatively connected to said control unit, and configured to acquire a real image of the at least one printing plate to be checked (paragraph 31), said control unit being configured to automatically compare said real image of the at least one printing plate, and a reference image corresponding to the creation file of a printing plate (paragraph 44), so as to highlight any differences between the real image of the at least one printing plate and the corresponding reference image to automatically recognize any physical or superficial defects in the analyzed object at least one printing plate in order to validate it or not to avoid the use of incorrect or worn plates (paragraph 44), reducing in any case, in all these circumstances, energy consumption and therefore CO2 (this is implicit in the method of Rostalski), so that the operator is able to easily ascertain whether a certain printing plate is affected by manufacturing defects of such magnitude as to compromise the execution of the printing job, or jobs, for which it was created (paragraph 44), wherein said scanning unit comprises a carriage (item 20), and guide means for said carriage (paragraph 73), wherein said scanning unit comprises at least one scanning sensor (item 18) and a lighting device (item 16) of the reading area of the scanning sensor, wherein said lighting device comprises one or more first lighting bodies positioned in the proximity of said scanner (item 16, Figure 1).” Rostalski also fails to disclose “that the guide means are provided in said base,” “wherein said support plate comprises at least one sheet of transparent or translucent material, wherein said lighting device comprises at least one lighting body and translation means of said lighting body underneath said support plate, said translation means being configured to move said lighting body forward together with said carriage, at the same speed.” However, Fujie et al. disclose that in a scanning apparatus of an engraved film similar to a printing plate, a flatbed arrangement (Figure 1b) is equivalent to a cylindrical one (Figure 21; column 14, lines 47-column 15, line 4). In the flatbed arrangement, the guide rails are contained in the body and below the engraved film (Figure 1b). It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.06. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a flatbed arrangement in the system of Rostalski instead of the cylindrical arrangement in order to check the flexographic plate because it has been shown in the art to be equivalent for the same purpose. The system of Fujie et al. has guide bars 18 and 19 which are in the base (Figure 1b), the lighting body 52 is beneath a transparent support plate (item 22, Figure 1b, Figure 3), and the lighting body and the carriage are moved together at the same speed (column 3, lines 58-68).
Regarding claim 17, Rostalski further discloses “comprising a user interface (item 28 and/or 30) operationally connected to, and interlocked with, said control unit, comprising at least one screen or monitor (item 30), said user interface being configured to show, superimposed or in transparency, or with similar solutions (paragraphs 43-44), the real image of the at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or single sheet, and the respective reference image (paragraph 44), in which any differences or defects are automatically shown and highlighted by closed lines, or circles, which enclose the areas of the screen concerned or with other similar solutions (paragraph 44: Examiner interprets whatever the ‘comparing’ of Rostalski is to be a ‘similar solution’), in order to validate the product or not (paragraph 44).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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 Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights