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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 20090225143 A1) in view of Writt et al. (US 20160288544 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukui teaches a printing device (Fig. 8 element 100); a fixing device (Fig. 8 elements 142a and b); a varnish applicator (Fig. 8 element 146); a gloss sensor system (Fig. 8 element 158); and a reaction unit (Fig. 11 element 172), wherein the printing device is configured to print primers and inks on a substrate (paragraph [0074]), the fixing device is configured to fix the printed primer and the printed inks on the substrate (S) (paragraph [0094]), the varnish applicator is configured to fix a varnish on the printed and fixed substrate (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0096]), the gloss sensor system is configured to detect gloss values of the substrate after the varnish application (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0102]), and the reaction unit being arranged to initiate a measure when a condition based on the gloss values occurs (paragraph [0102]).
Fukui fails to teach the gloss sensor measuring with a specific width resolution and a specific length resolution.
Writt et al. teaches a gloss sensor (Fig. 6 element 2000) that measures with a specific width resolution and a specific length resolution (paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Fukui et al. with the sensing system of Writt et al. to allow for a printing device that “reduces the time needed to analyze the gloss of the ink along the entire print swath PS” (paragraph [0060] of Writt et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Fukui and Writt et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Writt et al. teaches wherein the gloss sensor system is arranged to detect gloss values over an entire width and over an entire length of the substrate (Fig. 6 element 2000 and paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Fukui and Writt et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Fukui teaches a varnish fixing device mounted downstream of the gloss applicator in a printing direction (Fig. 6 elements 148a and b and paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 4, Fukui and Writt et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Fukui teaches wherein the gloss sensor system is arranged in the printing direction before and/or after the varnish fixing device (Fig. 8 elements 148a and b and element 158).
Regarding claim 5, Fukui and Writt et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Fukui fails to specifically teach wherein the reaction unit is arranged to compare the measured gloss values with a reference gloss value, and when at least one of the measured gloss values deviates from the reference gloss value as a condition, to initiate at least one measure. It does however teach initiating a response based on gloss values (paragraph [0102]).
Writt et al. teaches wherein the reaction unit (Fig. 6 element 500 and paragraph [0041]) is arranged to compare the measured gloss values with a reference gloss value (Fig. 9B element B70 and paragraph [0073]), and when at least one of the measured gloss values deviates from the reference gloss value as a condition, to initiate at least one measure (Fig. 9B elements B80, OB10-3 and OB10-5 and paragraphs [0073] and [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to compare the measured gloss value to a reference value and respond based on the difference as a simple substitution of the general response found in Fukui et al. for the specific method found in Writt et al.
Regarding claim 6, Fukui and Writt et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Fukui fails to specifically teach wherein the gloss sensor system has bite-optical gloss sensors and/or ultrasonic gloss sensors and/or capacitive gloss sensors and/or digital image processing systems and/or angular optical gloss sensors.
Writt et al. teach wherein the gloss sensor system has bite-optical gloss sensors and/or ultrasonic gloss sensors and/or capacitive gloss sensors and/or digital image processing systems and/or angular optical gloss sensors (paragraph [0048] specifically an angular optical gloss sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Fukui with the specific sensor of Writt et al. as a simple substitution of a nonspecific sensor of Kukui et al. for the specific sensor found in Writt et al.
Regarding claim 7, Fukui and Writt et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Fukui fails to teach wherein the gloss sensor system has, in a width direction, between five and thirty-five gloss sensors that are arranged to detect gloss values in a printing direction successively at a certain frequency.
Writt et al teaches wherein the gloss sensor system has, in a width direction (Fig. 6 element 2000), between five and thirty-five gloss sensors that are arranged to detect gloss values in a printing direction (paragraph [0060]) successively at a certain frequency (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the structure of Fukui with the plurality of sensors and sensing frequency as taught by Writt to be able to “spans the width of the printing zone 130, the entire print swath PS is scanned at once obviating the need for reciprocation and the associated carrier transport belt 116, carrier motor 120, carrier pulley 122, communications link 504 and the software or firmware in controller 500 needed for their operation” (Writt paragraph [0060]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 20090225143 A1) and Writt et al. (US 20160288544 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanada (US 20070147865 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fukui and Writt et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and Fukui and they fail to teach wherein a measure includes triggering a warning signal, in particular on an operating surface, and/or in reducing a quantity of primer printed on by the printing device and/or in adapting a viscosity and/or a pH value of the varnish.
Hanada et al. teaches a printer with a gloss sensor (Abstract) wherein a measure includes triggering a warning signal, in particular on an operating surface, and/or in reducing a quantity of primer printed on by the printing device and/or in adapting a viscosity and/or a pH value of the varnish (paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Fukui and Writt et al. with the notification system of Hanada et al. as a combination of known elements in the prior art to yield a printer were the user is able to see the output and change the setting of the print in response to a notification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure as recited alone or in combination with particularly including, when the condition occurs that gloss values have a slope or a gradient averaged over a printing width that exceeds a threshold value, the reaction unit is configured to initiate at least one measure, in particular the measure of automatically moving at least one roller from an applicator roller, a transfer roller and a back pressure cylinder of the varnish applicator , on a side that has a lower gloss value.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure as recited alone or in combination with particularly including wherein, when a condition occurs that a standard deviation of the gloss values determined statistically over a running time exceeds a threshold value, the reaction unit is configured to initiate a measure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoshino (US 20070188541 A1) and Zaima (US 20070127940 A1) are cited for having similar structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853 .
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights