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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because
a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or
cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction/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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeMarchi et al. (DE60220851).
With respect to claim 1, DeMarchi et al. teaches a pad printing machine comprising:
a base (refer to marked-up Figure 2 in the detailed action);
a platform (36) disposed on the base (refer to marked-up Figure 2 in the detailed action), and adapted to hold an article (glasses OG) thereon for printing (Paragraphs 0001, 0027, 0040);
a plurality of pad printing units disposed on the base at a predetermined orientation with respect to each other (48, Paragraphs 0001,0028, 0037, 0038), wherein each of the pad printing units comprises:
a cliche plate (28, 30) disposed adjacent to the platform (Figures 9-18) and comprising a pattern to print on the article (Paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0037);
an ink cup (32) disposed slidably over the cliche plate (28, 30) and adapted to provide ink to the cliche plate during a sliding operation thereof (Paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0029, 0032, 0035);
an actuator (50) positioned above the cliche plate (Paragraphs 0028, 0037, 0038, 0041); and
a silicon pad assembly (44) slidably mounted on the actuator (50) and adapted to slide between a home position and the platform (36, Paragraph 0028), wherein the silicon pad assembly is adapted to:
make selective contact with the cliche plate at the home position to pick the ink therefrom (Paragraphs 0001, 0028, 0037, Figures 9-12); and
make selective contact with the platform to deposit the ink on the article (Paragraphs 0001, 0025, 0026, 0028, 0029, 0033, 0036, 0037, 0040, 0041, Figures 13-16).
[AltContent: textbox (Base)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
474
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, DeMarchi et al. teaches the silicon pad assembly (44) of each of the plurality of pad printing units (48) has a sliding path independent from other silicon pad assembly (Figure 9A).
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.
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMarchi et al. (DE60220851) in view of Sherf (US Patent 6,931,988).
With respect to claim 3, DeMarchi et al. teaches the claimed invention including a plurality of pad printing units (44) with a first and second pad printing unit (48, Figure 9A) however DeMarchi et al. does not explicitly disclose the plurality of pad printing units comprising a second printing unit positioned at a first predefined angle from the first pad printing unit; and a third pad printing unit positioned at a second predefined angle from the second pad printing unit.
Sherf teaches a second printing unit (20) positioned at a first predefined angle from the first pad printing unit (18, Figures 1A-5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by DeMarchi et al. to provide a second printing unit positioned at a first predefined angle from the first pad printing unit as taught by Sherf for the purpose of providing a more versatile pad printing machine.
Sherf does not explicitly disclose a third pad printing unit positioned at a second predefined angle from the second pad printing unit. However, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Plarza, 274, 124 USPQ 378 (1960). Sherf does at least teach a second pad printing unit positioned at a first predefined angle from the first pad printing unit as disclosed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to provide a third pad printing unit positioned at a second predefined angle from the second pad printing unit since such a modification would effectively provide a more versatile pad printing machine.
With respect to claim 4, DeMarchi et al. teaches the first predefined angle and is between 30 to 90 degrees (Figures 1A-5A). With respect to the second predefined angle it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Plarza, 274, 124 USPQ 378 (1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to provide a third pad printing unit positioned at a second predefined angle since such a modification would effectively provide a more versatile pad printing machine.
With respect to claim 5, DeMarchi et al. teaches the silicon pad assembly (44) of the first pad printing unit (48) adapted to deposit ink of a first colour (Paragraph 0028), the silicon pad assembly (44) of the second pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a second colour (Paragraph 0028), wherein the first colour and the second colour is one of same and different (Paragraph 0028).
DeMarchi et al. does not explicitly disclose the silicon pad assembly of the third pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a third colour, however it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Plarza, 274, 124 USPQ 378 (1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to provide a third pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a third colour since such a modification would effectively provide a more versatile pad printing machine.
With respect to claim 6, DeMarchi et al. teaches the silicon pad assembly of the first pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a first pattern (Paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0037), the silicon pad assembly of the second pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a second pattern (Paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0037), wherein the first pattern and the second pattern is one of same and different (Paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0037).
DeMarchi et al. does not explicitly disclose the silicon pad assembly of the third pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a third pattern, however it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Plarza, 274, 124 USPQ 378 (1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to provide a third pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a third colour since such a modification would effectively provide a more versatile pad printing machine.
With respect to claim 7, the limitation of the sliding of the silicon pad assembly of the first pad printing unit between the respective home position and the platform is simultaneous to the sliding of the silicon pad assembly of the third pad printing unit between the respective home position and the platform, it is noted that the limitation is merely a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation. It has been held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2114(1) which states, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473. 1477-78.44 USP0.2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)." Furthermore, MPEP 2114(11) states, "A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
With respect to claim 8, DeMarchi et al. teaches each of the plurality of pad printing units (44, 48) adapted to function independently to perform first and second printing operations (Paragraphs 0001, 0025, 0026, 0028, 0029, 0033, 0036, 0037, 0040, 0041).
DeMarchi et al. does not explicitly disclose the third printing operations, however it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Plarza, 274, 124 USPQ 378 (1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to provide a third pad printing unit adapted to deposit ink of a third colour since such a modification would effectively provide a more versatile pad printing machine.
With respect to claim 9, DeMarchi et al. teaches a control unit adapted to operate the plurality of pad printing units in a predefined sequence (Paragraphs 0001, 0028) wherein the predefined sequence includes at least one of:
a first printing operation adapted to operate the first pad printing unit (Paragraphs 0001, 0025, 0026, 0028, 0029, 0033, 0036, 0037, 0040, 0041).
DeMarchi et al. does not explicitly disclose a second printing operation adapted to operate the third pad printing unit; and a third printing operation adapted to operate the second pad printing unit, however it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Plarza, 274, 124 USPQ 378 (1960).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to provide a second printing operation adapted to operate the third pad printing unit and a third printing operation adapted to operate the second pad printing unit since such a modification would effectively provide a more versatile pad printing machine.
With respect to claim 10, the limitation the plurality of pad printing units is adapted to operate in mono-colour mode, a dual-colour mode, and tri-colour mode, it is noted that the limitation is merely a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation. It has been held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. Particular attention is invited to MPEP 2114(1) which states, "While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473. 1477-78.44 USP0.2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)." Furthermore, MPEP 2114(11) states, "A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus' if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMarchi et al. (DE60220851) in view of Hajek (WO2022188905).
With respect to claim 11, DeMarchi et al. teaches the silicon pad assembly of each of the plurality of pad printing units (44, 48) adapted to operate at a predefined pad pressure, however DeMarchi et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the pad pressure of each of the silicon pad assembly adapted to be adjusted independently.
Hajek teaches a pad printing assembly wherein the pad pressure of each of the silicon pad assembly adapted to be adjusted independently (Page 6, Lines 14-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by DeMarchi et al. to provide the pad pressure of each of the silicon pad assembly adapted to be adjusted independently as taught by Hajek for the purpose of ensuring the medium is properly printed in a clear, concise manner.
With respect to claim 12, DeMarchi et al. teaches each silicon pad assembly of the plurality of pad printing unit (44, 48), at the platform (refer to marked-up Figure 2 in the detailed action), is adapted to exhibit a pad stroke between a top position and the article (Figures 10 and 12), however DeMarchi et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the stroke of the silicon pads of the plurality of pad printing unit is independently adjustable.
Hajek teaches a pad printing assembly wherein a length of the stroke of the silicon pads of the plurality of pad printing unit is independently adjustable (Page 6, Lines 14-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by DeMarchi et al. to provide a length of the stroke of the silicon pads of the plurality of pad printing unit is independently adjustable as taught by Hajek for the purpose of ensuring the medium is properly printed in a clear, concise manner.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMarchi et al. (DE60220851) in view of Choi Chon (KR 20190009538).
With respect to claim 13, DeMarchi et al. teaches the claimed invention with the exception of the plurality of pad printing units comprising an in-built tape cleaning mechanism adapted to clean the silicon pads assembly of the plurality of pad printing units.
Choi Chon teaches a pad printing machine with a plurality of pad printing units (13, Figure 1) comprising an in-built tape cleaning mechanism (Paragraph 0019) adapted to clean the silicon pads assembly of the plurality of pad printing units (Paragraphs 0040, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by DeMarchi et al. to provide an in-built tape cleaning mechanism adapted to clean the silicon pads assembly of the plurality of pad printing units as taught by Choi Chon for the purpose of effectively removing ink from the printing pads.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng (US Publication 2023/0302783), Grabbe et al. (WO2021/259893), Kucaba et al. (US Publication 2013/0327414), Phillip et al. (DE102011078532), Cameron (US Patent 6,393,981), Nakajima et al. (JP 10-278226) and Galassi (EP0718098) teaches pad printing machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852