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.
Claims 1-17 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 1 contains the language “preferably” in step e). It is unclear whether the limitations following the language “preferably” are required by the claim or merely optional. For examination purposes, these limitations will be considered preferred embodiments and not required by the claim. The dependent claims are likewise rejected as failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 7, 10-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pervan et al., WO 2014/109703.
Per claims 1, 7, 10-13, Pervan teaches a process for producing a three dimensional tile (digital print P on a surface (2) (abstract, page 1) (ceramic tile, page 1, lines 10-11), comprising providing a support comprising a surface (page 1, lines 10-11), depositing a solid powder material (dry ink 15) on said surface to form a uniform layer (Fig. 3d, page 40, lines 29-31), printing at least one fixing agent (blank ink 11) in liquid form according to at least one given pattern (Fig. 3d, page 40 line 31 to page 41, line 1), removing the unfixed solid powder material (Fig. 3d, page 42, lines 8-10) (although the limitations following preferably are not required, see above 112 rejection, Pervan teaches a vacuum at page 40, line 10), and subjecting the product to firing (page 33, lines 19-21). It is further noted that steps b) and f) are optional and therefore not required by the claim. Nonetheless, Pervan teaches steps b) and f) of applying a glaze and/or decorating (page 6, lines 18-20).
Per claim 2, Pervan teaches digital printing (page 29, lines 29-30).
Per claims 3-4, 14, Pervan teaches the fixing agent to be water based or solvent based and containing glycol ethers and glycerin (bottom of page 29).
Per claim 17, Pervan teaches that the ceramics are clay which are silicates (pages 5-6).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan et al., WO 2014/109703.
Per claims 5, 9, 15, Pervan teaches that the fixing agent should have a high density which affects the falling direction of the particles during spraying (page 59) and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the density of the fixing agent to arrive at the desired results via routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05).
Per claims 6 and 16, Pervan teaches the viscosity is an important variable to control due to the viscosity controlling variables in the ink jet printer (e.g., for proper functioning) (page 12). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the viscosity of the fixing agent to arrive at the desired results via routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05).
Per claim 8, Pervon teaches that the particle diameter has a direct effect on the DPI printing resolution (page 16). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have controlled the diameter of the solid powder material to arrive at the desired results via routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights