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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following grammatical informalities:
“a image on a substrate” should be corrected to “an image on a substrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
“controlling the vapor pressure” should be corrected to “controlling a vapor pressure” to avoid an antecedent basis issue. 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 1 is 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.
The term “elevated temperatures” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated temperatures” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It appears that Applicant is raising the temperature of the process from a starting point. However, this starting temperature is not sufficiently defined (i.e., is it zero degrees Celsius, 25 degrees Celsius, or some other value?). Applicant discloses that “water may be at or slightly above room temperature” and that “elevated temperature is preferably in the range of 30 to 70 degrees Celsius” (Applicant’s disclosure: p. 2, l.13-15). Additionally, it is unclear if when Applicant discloses the “elevated temperature” range they are referring to 30-70 degrees Celsius being the difference in temperature between the starting temperature and the desired temperature or if Applicant refers to the desired temperature using the nomenclature “elevated temperature”. For example, is the elevated temperature 25 degrees Celsius plus 30 degrees Celsius (i.e., 55 degrees Celsius) or 30 degrees Celsius (or some other value)? Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the Examiner is unable to ascertain what the “elevated temperatures” are.
Additionally, the term “reduced vapor pressure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated temperatures” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It appears that Applicant is reducing the vapor pressure of the process from a starting point. However, this starting pressure is not sufficiently defined (i.e., is it 1013.25 hPa or some other value?). Additionally, it is unclear if when Applicant discloses the “reduced vapor pressure” range they are referring to being the difference in pressure between the starting pressure and the desired pressure or if Applicant refers to the desired pressure using the nomenclature “reduced vapor pressure”. For example, is the reduced vapor pressure 1013.25 hPa minus 10 hPa (i.e., 1003.25 hPa) or 10 hPa (or some other value)? Therefore, the Examiner is unable to ascertain what the “reduced vapor pressure” is. Examiner also notes to Applicant that, while conducting search, the defining of specific reduced vapor pressures associated with the method limitations claimed in claim 1, was uncommon. Therefore, Examiner notes to Applicant that a properly defined elevated temperature as well as a reduced vapor pressure both incorporated into claim 1 may result in a novel invention, although this would require an additional round of examination to confirm.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for being dependent on a claim with a 112(b) rejection (see discussion of claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bugner et al. (US 20150360480 A1; herein referred to as “Bugner”).
With respect to claim 1, Bugner teaches a method for inducing film formation of printed ink (Bugner: ¶0010-0019 & Fig. 1),
the ink comprising polymer particulates (i.e., “pigment ink 300” containing “polymeric dispersants”, including “block”-type polymers; Bugner: ¶0036 & 0042),
the printed ink forming an image (i.e., “producing printed images by deposition of ink droplets”) on a substrate (i.e., “100”; Bugner: ¶0037; Fig. 1),
the method comprising the steps of:
a. applying a water film on top of the image (i.e., “applying substantially pure water…to the dried substrate with deposited aqueous ink”; Bugner: ¶0009 & 0013; also see Objections section). Note that Bugner teaches this can be “accomplished by using various different techniques” (Bugner: ¶0015-0017), which will be discussed in more detail in various dependent claims.
b. allowing the water to form a layer in-between the polymer particulates. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “substantially pure water” applied onto the “deposited aqueous ink” would allow the water to form a layer in-between the polymer particulates of the ink. The ink being aqueous (i.e., water-based) indicates the applied water layer could mixed with the ink. Moreover, the purpose of Bugner’s invention is that adding a layer of water to the dried aqueous ink then re-wets the ink (i.e., water interacts with the chemicals in the ink) and the second round of drying strengthens the durability of the ink (i.e., the ink is structurally enhanced by this interaction of water molecules with the ink-related chemicals).
c. and evaporating the water (i.e., “removing the applied water and heat to return the dried substrate to an ambient temperature and moisture content”) at elevated temperatures (i.e., temperature elevated beyond an “ambient temperature” due to heat that is later removed) and reduced vapor pressure (i.e., “removing the applied water…to return the dried substrate to an ambient…moisture content”; Bugner: ¶0014 & Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the evaporation of water occurs at specific temperatures and vapor pressures, as defined in standard thermodynamics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a vapor pressure reduced from ambient vapor pressure could be selected as the operating condition to encourage effective water evaporation from the substrate. Also note that the phrases “elevated temperatures” and “reduced vapor pressure” are insufficiently defined and therefore claim 1 has been rejected under 112(b), as discussed in the section above.
With respect to claim 2, Bugner teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the elevated temperature is in the range of 30 to 70 degrees Celsius (i.e., substrate may be heated to 50 degrees Celsius; Bugner: ¶0050). Note that, as discussed in the 112(b) section, “elevated temperature” does not have a sufficiently defined starting temperature, so the Examiner is assuming the starting temperature is zero degrees Celsius, which is a common standard temperature that would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
and the reduced vapor pressure is in the range of 10 to 100 hectoPascal. Although Bugner fails to disclose the specific value of reduced vapor pressure used, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the evaporation of water occurs at specific temperatures and vapor pressures (i.e., vapor pressure is a variable), as defined in standard thermodynamics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a vapor pressure reduced from ambient vapor pressure could be selected as the operating condition to encourage effective water evaporation from the substrate. This operation at a specific vapor pressure, such as selecting a reduced vapor pressure in the range of 10 to 100 hectoPascals for operation, would be routine optimization. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (in re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Moreover, the Examiner notes to Applicant that, as discussed in the 112(b) section, “reduced vapor pressure” does not have a sufficiently defined starting pressure, so Applicant has insufficiently defined the specific vapor pressure value they attempt to claim.
With respect to claim 3, Bugner teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the water film is applied by dispersing water droplets from a print head (i.e., “a uniform layer of substantially pure liquid water” which is “applied by any known way, such …spraying, misting, ….and the like”; Bugner: ¶0036 & 0053). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a print head can also be used to apply a layer of a liquid to a substrate. Moreover, Bugner teaches print heads can be used to deposit different types of liquids (i.e., “printheads” can be used to apply liquids, such as inks or coating solutions; Bugner: ¶0029).
With respect to claim 4, Bugner teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the substrate temperature is such that a water film is obtained from condensation of water vapor on top of the image (i.e., “substantially pure water” is “applied” to the dried deposited ink via use of a humidity-controlled oven “500” with “essentially 100% relative humidity”; Bugner: ¶0015-0016). Note that at exactly 100% relative humidity, air is fully saturated with water vapor. Water vapor in this air will begin to condense once the relative humidity exceeds 100%, such as within air that is approximately/”essentially” 100% relative humidity but slightly above this exact number.
With respect to claim 5, Bugner teaches a printing system (see Fig. 1) comprising a module for printing ink (i.e., “inkjet deposition system 200”) comprising polymer particulates (i.e., “pigment ink 300” containing “polymeric dispersants”, including “block”-type polymers), thus forming a image on a substrate (i.e., “100”), a module for drying the ink (i.e., “drying system 400”) and a module for inducing film formation of the printed ink (i.e., “500” ; Bugner: ¶0036-0037, ¶0046, & Fig. 1), this last module comprising
an element for applying a water film on top of the image (i.e., “substantially pure water” is “applied” to the dried deposited ink via use of a humidity-controlled oven “500” with “essentially 100% relative humidity”; Bugner: ¶0015-0016 & ¶0052). Note that at exactly 100% relative humidity, air is fully saturated with water vapor. Water vapor in this air will begin to condense once the relative humidity exceeds 100%, such as within air that is approximately/”essentially” 100% relative humidity but slightly above this exact number. This air that can condense into water that is applied to the image is the claimed element.
a heating element for raising the temperature of the substrate (i.e., “500” is temperature controlled; Bugner: ¶0052 & 0015). Note that the substrate “100” enters this oven "500”, wherein its temperature is raised via heating in the oven. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that, because Bugner teaches that the oven “500” is temperature-controlled and can be set to a specific temperature, the oven has an element that causes heating.
a vapor pressure regulator for controlling the vapor pressure above the heated substrate (i.e., “500” is humidity controlled; Bugner: ¶0050, ¶0052 & ¶0015). Bugner teaches that the relative humidity in the module “500” can be adjusted/controlled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that relative humidity is calculated via the actual vapor pressure divided by the saturation vapor pressure. Therefore, when adjusting/controlling the relative humidity in “500”, as taught by Bugner, the formula above indicates that vapor pressure would be controlled so as to adjust the humidity value. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that, because Bugner teaches that the oven “500” is humidity-controlled, the oven has an element that controls humidity (which as explained above, involves controlling vapor pressure).
wherein the elements are configured to apply a method according to claim 1 (Bugner: ¶0050, ¶0052, ¶0015, Fig. 1, & see discussion in claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Bugner teaches a print system according to claim 5, wherein the element for applying a water film is a printhead (i.e., “a uniform layer of substantially pure liquid water” which is “applied by any known way, such …spraying, misting, ….and the like”; Bugner: ¶0036 & 0053). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a print head can also be used to apply a layer of a liquid to a substrate. Moreover, Bugner teaches print heads can be used to deposit different types of liquids (i.e., “printheads” can be used to apply liquids, such as inks or coating solutions; Bugner: ¶0029).
With respect to claim 7, Bugner teaches a print system according to claim 5, wherein the heating element comprises a hot air impingement element (i.e., “rapid evaporative drying, enhanced by application of heat energy and forced air flow across the surface of the print, is preferred”; Bugner: ¶0046 & Fig. 1). Bugner teaches that drying/heating of a printed image can be preferentially performed by using an application of heat and forced air (i.e., hot air impingement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the heating element used to raise the temperature of the substrate in “500” could be the same type of heating element used in the “drying system 400”.
With respect to claim 8, Bugner teaches a print system according to claim 5, wherein the module for inducing film formation comprises elements for alternatingly cooling and heating the substrate in order to have condensation and evaporation of water on and from the substrate (i.e., “500” is temperature controlled; Bugner: ¶0052 & 0015). Although Bugner fails to explicitly disclose alternatingly cooling and heating the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Bugner’s teaching of a temperature-controlled oven “500” could control the temperature by comprising an element that turns on the heating component of the oven (i.e., a heating element) and an element that turns off the heating component of the oven (i.e., essentially a cooling element, given it leads to the oven being cooled). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that temperature controller elements could be used to alternatingly cool and heat the substrate while in the oven. The Examiner also notes that Bugner is silent on the duration of each temperature that is controlled in the oven, indicating that the oven’s elements could be configured to have specific temperatures that are cooler and warmer at various alternating durations while the substrate is within “500”.
With respect to claim 9, Bugner teaches a print system according to claim 5, wherein the ink is a water-based latex (i.e., “pigment inks 300” containing “aqueous dispersible acrylic latex polymers; Bugner: ¶0045).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/GEOFFREY S MRUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 09/15/2026
Prosecution Insights