DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-21, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Poole in view of Reslow have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that “Poole teaches away from the claimed invention,” and that the claimed linear channel is “formed by a plurality of cells themselves.” This argument is not persuasive for three reasons. First, Poole does not teach away from the claimed invention, as set forth in the rejection of the claims below. Second, the claimed linear channel is not “formed by a plurality of cells themselves.” The cells alone would be incapable of forming any sort of channel, as the cells alone would instead form a disconnected set of cells wherein a liquid would not be able to travel from cell to cell. Instead, the disclosed linear channel is formed by the cells and cell wall tops as shown in Fig. 6B, in addition to the channel walls, as shown in Fig. 9. Third, the claim fails to recite that the linear channel is formed of only cells. The claim uses the open transition phrase “comprising,” which means that the claim is not limited to only those elements recited. While the claim recites “a linear channel formed of a plurality of cells with pockets of varying cell wall depth,” the claim does not exclude the linear channel also being formed of additional elements. Because Poole does not teach away from the claimed invention, it is combinable with Reslow, as set forth below.
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 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.
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, 3, 5-10, 12-21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole, US Patent Number 4,301,583 (hereinafter Poole) in view of Reslow, US Patent Number 5,370,052 (hereinafter Reslow).
Regarding claim 1:
Poole teaches a roller for use with a printing apparatus to transfer a liquid to a plate or substrate, the roller comprising:
a cylinder (10, Fig. 1) having an engraved surface with a linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern (14, Fig. 1; Fig. 2),
wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a linear channel (20, 22, Fig. 2) formed of a plurality of cells (18, Fig. 2) with pockets of varying cell wall depth and at a cell pocket positioned angle, wherein the linear channel formed of the plurality of cells has a channel engraved angle (cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4), and
the linear channel has a total channel depth equal to the cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel (the total depth equals the depth of all of the engraved features, including cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel 22 above the cell walls but within the channel, Figs. 3 and 4).
Poole does not teach wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Reslow teaches that a ceramic coating on anilox rollers is advantageous for providing a wear-resistance surface (col. 1, lines 34-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poole to coat the surface of the cylinder with ceramics, because Reslow teaches that ceramics are advantageous for providing a wear-resistant surface, thereby resulting in wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the engraved surface is laser engraved (This claim is a product-by-process claim. Patentability of a product is determined solely based on the structure and functionality of the product itself, and not upon its manner of manufacture, as set forth in MPEP § 2113(I). In this instance, the engraved surface 14 of Poole appears structurally indistinguishable from the structure of the roller of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the liquid is any material having a viscosity that allows for flow through a linear channel of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern (This limitation refers to an intended use of the apparatus, and is otherwise incapable of patentably distinguishing an apparatus over otherwise structurally identical prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2114(II). In this instance, the roller of Poole is capable of being used with any liquid having a viscosity that allows for flow through a linear channel of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the liquid is selected from the group consisting of an ink, an adhesive, a varnish, and a combination thereof (This limitation refers to an intended use of the apparatus, and is otherwise incapable of patentably distinguishing an apparatus over otherwise structurally identical prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2114(II). In this instance, the roller of Poole is capable of being used with any liquid selected from the group consisting of an ink, an adhesive, a varnish, and a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30 to 89° or 91° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a base cell profile of a hex (Poole: “The surface 24 has a non-equi-angular hexagonal shape in plain view as in FIG. 2,” col. 2, lines 63-64).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 20% to 80% of the total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 9, as set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 40% to 60% of a total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 150 (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 89 or 91 to 150 (degrees) (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 20% to 80% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 15, as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 40% to 60% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 17:
Poole teaches a cylinder comprising:
a linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern (20, Fig. 1; Fig. 2) having a linear channel (20, 22, Fig. 2) at a channel engraved angle and having channel walls, and a plurality of cells (cells 18, Figs. 2 and 3) with pockets with pockets of varying cell wall depth and at a cell pocket positioned angle (located within the linear channel cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4), and
the linear channel has a total channel depth equal to the cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel (the total depth equals the depth of all of the engraved features, including cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel, Figs. 3 and 4).
Poole does not teach wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Reslow teaches that a ceramic coating on anilox rollers is advantageous for providing a wear-resistance surface (col. 1, lines 34-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poole to coat the surface of the cylinder with ceramics, because Reslow teaches that ceramics are advantageous for providing a wear-resistant surface, thereby resulting in wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern is in a range of 30 to 89° or 91° to 150° (degrees) in relation to an axial direction of the coated cylinder (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a base cell profile of a hex (Poole: “The surface 24 has a non-equi-angular hexagonal shape in plain view as in FIG. 2,” col. 2, lines 63-64).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 20% to 80% of the total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein a cell of the linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern has a pocket in a bottom of the cell having a cell wall depth in a range of from 40% to 60% of a total channel depth (Poole: “The depth of a cell 18 from the roller surface 14 to the flat bottom surface 24 thereof may typically be 20 microns or 0.0008 inches,” “The channels 22 may typically be 42 microns or about 0.0017 inch wide and about 10 microns deep,” col. 3, lines 12-20, which works out to a depth of 50%).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 150 (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the channel engraved angle is in a range from 30 to 89 or 91 to 150 (degrees) (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 17, as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 20% to 80% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Poole and Reslow teaches the invention of claim 26, as set forth in the rejection of claim 26 above. The combination of Poole and Reslow also teaches wherein the cell pocket positioned angle is in a range of 40% to 60% of the channel engraved angle (Poole: “The helix angle may be very small or as much as 45° or more as indicated by the lines A--A and A'-A' of FIG. 1 which represent possibilities for the angular disposition of the centerline or axis of a series 20 of cells,” col. 2, lines 43-46, and, given the dimensions and geometry disclosed, the channel engraved angle is approximately 50% of the cell engraved angle).
Regarding claim 28:
Poole teaches a method of using a roller to reduce spitting in printing, the method comprising:
providing a printing apparatus having a roller having an engraved surface (10, Fig. 1),
wherein the engraved surface has a linear cell-contained channel engraving pattern having a linear channel (20, 22, Fig. 2) at a channel engraved angle and having channel walls, and a plurality of cells (18, Figs. 2 and 3) with pockets of varying cell wall depth (cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4) and at a cell pocket positioned angle located within the linear channel (cell wall depth varies due to angle of cell wall sides, such as 26 in Fig. 3 and 28 in Fig. 4),
the linear channel has a total channel depth equal to the cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel (the total depth equals the depth of all of the engraved features, including cell wall depth plus a free flow liquid channel depth, with the free flow liquid channel being that portion of the channel above the cell walls but within the channel, Figs. 3 and 4); and
transferring a liquid from the engraved surface of the roller to a plate (“Fluid metering or transfer rollers, commonly called "anilox rollers," are used extensively in the flexographic printing trade to transfer closely controlled quantities of ink from rubber fountain rollers running in an ink bath to a rubber printing plate,” col. 1, lines 6-9).
Poole does not teach wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Reslow teaches that a ceramic coating on anilox rollers is advantageous for providing a wear-resistance surface (col. 1, lines 34-44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poole to coat the surface of the cylinder with ceramics, because Reslow teaches that ceramics are advantageous for providing a wear-resistant surface, thereby resulting in wherein the cylinder is coated by a ceramic or other engravable coating or material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO T HINZE whose telephone number is (571)272-2864. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-2.
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 on (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.
/LEO T HINZE/
Patent Examiner
AU 2853
25 July 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights