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 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) 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 9 recites the limitation “said carriage” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wang (US 5841955). Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses “a machine for checking flexographic printing plates (column 12, lines 25-28), or offset plates, or plate assemblies, or printed surfaces, comprising: a base (item 12), a support plane (see the support plane on top of item 12 in Figure 2), associated with said base, for at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, or a single sheet (item 14), from which different printing plates, or different offset plates, or different plate assemblies, or different printed surfaces, will then be obtained by cutting, the surface or physical characteristics of which are to be checked and controlled, a control unit (item 10), a surface scanning unit (at least, items 22 and 34) of the at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, or single sheet, to be checked, said scanning unit being operatively connected to said control unit (see Figure 2), and configured to acquire a real image of the at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, or single sheet, to be checked (column 7, lines 19-21, said control unit being configured to automatically compare said real image of the at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, or single sheet, acquired by said scanning unit, and a reference image corresponding to the creation file of a printing plate, or of a sheet of multiple plates, or the creation file of an offset plate or the file of the final print to be made (column 7, lines 65-67), so as to highlight any differences between the real image of the at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, or single sheet, to automatically recognize any physical or superficial defects in the analyzed object at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, or single sheet, in order to validate it or not to avoid the use of incorrect or worn plates, or to avoid the creation of expensive print tests, or to automatically recognize and avoid an erroneous print or in order to speed up the initialization of new print jobs on existing machines without control systems (column 5, lines 41-58), reducing in any case, in all these circumstances, energy consumption and therefore CO2, so that the operator is able to easily ascertain whether a certain printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or single sheet, is affected by manufacturing defects of such magnitude as to compromise the execution of the printing job, or jobs, for which it was created, or whether the printed surface is not compliant and presents defects (column 7, lines 65-67).” Regarding claim 2, Wang further discloses “wherein said scanning unit comprises a carriage, and guide means, provided in said base, for said carriage, said carriage having two ends and a lower surface, said carriage being slidable, above said support plane, along a predetermined direction, or said scanning unit is fixed with respect to said base, and said support plane is slidable, with respect to said scanning unit, along a predetermined direction, or said scanning unit is fixed with respect to said base, and said at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, is movable with respect to said scanning unit by means of a drag system (see the configuration in Figure 2).” Examiner notes that the printed surface of Wang 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 Wang.
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) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein said support plane for at least one printing plate, or offset plate, or plate assembly, or printed surface, comprises at least one sheet of transparent or translucent material.” Wang is silent to what the support plane is made from, leaving the choice up to one having ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the invention, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was a known material used for making a support onto which a piece of paper is to be placed. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to PET to make the support of Wang. Examiner notes that PET is transparent or translucent. Regarding claim 8, Wang further disclose “wherein said scanning unit comprises at least one lighting device (items 18 and/or 20) of the reading area of said scanning sensor.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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