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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 406 depicted in Fig. 4A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of ¶[0052] recites, “enabling print head maintenance and caping (emphasis added).” It appears that the word “capping” was the intended word choice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains the following recitation, “depositing a powder on a first surface of the media comprises spraying the powder (emphasis added).” Claim 1 contains the following recitation, “depositing a powder on a first surface of the media.” It appears that the powder referred to in claim 6 is the same powder recited in claim 1. Therefore, in order to clearly reflect the antecedent basis established in claim 1, it is suggest to amend claim 6 to read, “depositing the powder on the first surface of the media comprises spraying the powder (emphasis added).”
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniuchi (US 20180001672 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Taniuchi teaches a method for pretreating media in an aqueous ink jet printing system, comprising: depositing a powder on a first surface of the media (figs. 1-2; transfer member 1, powder material applying device 6; ¶[0034]-[0037]); depositing an aqueous solution on the first surface of the media to dissolve the powder on the first surface of the media to form a pretreatment composition (figs. 1-2; first inkjet device 3; ¶[0017]-[0030]); and depositing a pigmented ink on or near the pretreatment composition (figs. 1-2; second inkjet device 4; ¶[0038]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Taniuchi teaches the method for pretreating media in an aqueous ink jet printing system of claim 1, wherein depositing a powder on a first surface of the media comprises spraying the powder (¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Taniuchi teaches the method for pretreating media in an aqueous ink jet printing system of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution comprises polyvinyl alcohol, a cation, a biocide, or a combination thereof (¶[0026]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniuchi (US 20180001672 A1) in view of Houjou (EP 3683061 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Taniuchi teaches the method of claim 1, however Taniuchi fails to teach or fairly suggest further comprising monitoring a property of the media.
Houjou teaches an inkjet printing method comprising monitoring a property of the media (¶[0072]-[0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the temperature sensing of Houjou into the method of Taniuchi in order to monitor an ink drying condition.
Regarding claim 5, Taniuchi as modified by Houjou teaches the method according to claim 2. Houjou further teaches the property of the media comprises media absorbency, surface roughness, environmental storage conditions, or a combination thereof (¶[0072]-[0073]).
In the case of Houjou, temperature of the medium is considered to be an environmental storage condition of the medium.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniuchi (US 20180001672 A1) in view of Koitabashi (EP 1063267 A2).
Regarding claim 8, Taniuchi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: depositing the aqueous solution comprises jetting the aqueous solution from a printhead. However, Taniuchi fails to teach or fairly suggest the aqueous solution is deposited at a drop volume of from about 2 picoliters to about 20 picoliters.
Koitabashi teaches depositing an aqueous solution by jetting the aqueous solution from a printhead; and the aqueous solution is deposited at a drop volume of from about 2 picoliters to about 20 picoliters (fig. 8; treatment liquid head 101S; pg. 20, ¶[0141]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the operation of the printhead according to Koitabashi into the method of Taniuchi in order to achieve a desired imaging quality by reducing micro-scale phenomenon disclosed in ¶[0007]-[0011] of Koitabashi.
Claims 10-12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniuchi (US 20180001672 A1) in view of Matsuzaki (US 20190283464 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Taniuchi teaches the method of claim 1, however Taniuchi fails to teach or fairly suggest depositing an aqueous solution and depositing the pigmented ink is done with a multichannel printhead; and the multichannel printhead comprises a first channel and a second channel that are not in fluid communication with one another.
Matsuzaki teaches depositing an aqueous solution and depositing a pigmented ink with a multichannel printhead; and the multichannel printhead comprises a first channel and a second channel that are not in fluid communication with one another (figs. 1A-2; recording head 2, treatment liquid nozzle group R, non-white ink composition nozzle groups C1-4; ¶[0111], [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the printhead of Matsuzaki into the method of Taniuchi in order to improve the sharpness of the image printed in colored ink by the multichannel printhead (see ¶[0004], [0112] of Matsuzaki).
Regarding claim 11, Taniuchi teaches a system for pretreating media in an aqueous inkjet printing system, comprising: a powder deposition device configured to deposit a layer of powder on a surface of the media; and a media path configured to transport the media in proximity to the powder deposition device and a printhead (figs. 1-2; transfer member 1, powder material applying device 6; ¶[0034]-[0037]).
However, Taniuchi fails to teach or fairly suggest a multichannel printhead, comprising: a first channel comprising a source of an aqueous solution; and a second channel comprising a source of a pigmented ink wherein the first channel and the second channel are not in fluid communication with one another.
Matsuzaki teaches a multichannel printhead, comprising: a first channel comprising a source of an aqueous solution; and a second channel comprising a source of a pigmented ink wherein the first channel and the second channel are not in fluid communication with one another (figs. 1A-2; recording head 2, treatment liquid nozzle group R, non-white ink composition nozzle groups C1-4; ¶[0111], [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the printhead of Matsuzaki into the system of Taniuchi in order to improve the sharpness of the image printed in colored ink by the multichannel printhead (see ¶[0004], [0112] of Matsuzaki).
Regarding claim 12, Taniuchi as modified by Matsuzaki teaches the system of claim 11. Taniuchi further teaches the media is transported in proximity to the powder deposition device before being transported in proximity to the printhead (fig. 1; transfer member 1, powder material applying device 6, second inkjet device 4; ¶[0034]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Taniuchi as modified by Matsuzaki teaches the system of claim 11. Taniuchi further teaches the aqueous solution comprises polyvinyl alcohol, a cation, a biocide, or a combination thereof (¶[0026])
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniuchi as modified by Matsuzaki as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Houjou (EP 3683061 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Taniuchi as modified by Matsuzaki teaches the system of claim 11. However, Taniuchi and Matsuzaki fail to teach or fairly suggest they system further comprising a sensor to measure a property of the media.
Houjou teaches an inkjet printing system comprising a sensor to measure a property of the media (¶[0072]-[0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the temperature sensor according to Houjou into the system of Taniuchi in order to monitor a drying condition of a printed medium.
Regarding claim 14, Taniuchi as modified by Matsuzaki, and further modified by Houjou teaches the system according to claim 13. Houjou further teaches the property of the media comprises media absorbency, surface roughness, environmental storage conditions, or a combination thereof (¶[0072]-[0073]).
In the case of Houjou, temperature of the medium is considered to be an environmental storage condition of the medium.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniuchi as modified by Matsuzaki as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Koitabashi (EP 1063267 A2).
Taniuchi as modified by Matsuzaki teaches the system of claim 11. However, Taniuchi and Matsuzaki fail to teach or fairly suggest the aqueous solution is deposited at a drop volume of from about 2 picoliters to about 20 picoliters.
Koitabashi teaches ejecting an aqueous solution from a printhead at a drop volume of from about 2 picoliters to about 20 picoliters (fig. 8; treatment liquid head 101S; pg. 20, ¶[0141]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the operation of the printhead according to Koitabashi into the method of Taniuchi in order to achieve a desired imaging quality by reducing micro-scale phenomenon disclosed in ¶[0007]-[0011] of Koitabashi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are hereby allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the ink jet printing system of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, a powder deposition device configured to deposit a layer of powder on a surface of a media, the powder comprises calcium, magnesium, or a combination thereof; the aqueous solution comprises polyvinyl alcohol, a cation, a biocide, or a combination thereof; and the aqueous solution is deposited at a drop volume of from about 2 picoliters to about 20 picoliters.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3-4, 7, 15 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:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein the powder comprises calcium, magnesium, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the system of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, wherein the powder comprises calcium, magnesium, or a combination thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seki et al. (US 20150298469 A1) teaches an inkjet printing device comprising a powder applying unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights