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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to claim 12, the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 are allowable, because Hattori does not teach or suggest claim 1 as amended. Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 are not allowable, as set forth in the rejection of the claims 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, 4-7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al., JP H08-112978 A (hereinafter Hattori) in view of Ioannou, US 20150259817 A1 (hereinafter Ioannou).
Regarding claim 1:
Hattori teaches a lightweight rotogravure printing cylinder comprising:
a hollow, shaftless cylindrical form and inlets at both ends of the lateral surface of the cylindrical form that are open so as to allow access to the inner volume (cylindrical body 2, Fig. 1), and wherein
a first cover which enables to close the open inlets of the cylindrical body and a second cover which closes the second inlet at the second end of the cylindrical body (covers 3, Fig. 1),
at least one shaft opening that allows grasping the shaft which enables the cylindrical body to be placed on the printing machine and rotational movement to be transferred therethrough, when it is passed through the center of the cylindrical body (unlabeled openings in 3, Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the ribs are placed inside the cylindrical body such that the ribs make 360 deg. contact with an inner surface of the cylindrical body to stabilize the cylinder despite a reduced wall thickness (“a ring-shaped reinforcing member (1) having an outer diameter approximately the same as the inner diameter of the cylinder body (2) is provided,” ¶ 0011; “the reinforcing members are pressed into the cylinder body (2) at predetermined positions,” ¶ 0013); and
at plurality of ribs in the form of a circular plates positioned along the length of the cylindrical body between the first cover and the second cover, and wherein the ribs enable the middle section of the cylindrical body remaining between the at least one cover to be supported from its inner surface, the ribs having a shaft opening of a size that allows the shaft to pass through the center thereof (annular rings 1, Figs. 1 and 3).
Hattori does not teach wherein the ribs are spaced at regular intervals such that the ribs are uniformly spaced along the full length of the cylinder;
wherein a steel plate material is used to form the body, the thickness of the steel plate material being 3.5-7.5 mm, and
wherein the distance (L) between two consecutive ribs is in the range of minimum 1 cylinder diameter (D) and maximum 2 cylinder diameters (D).
It has been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would likely be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the number and spacing of annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost), and maximizing strength.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed application to modify Hattori wherein the ribs are spaced at regular intervals such that the ribs are uniformly spaced along the full length of the cylinder, because one having ordinary skill in the art could easily and predictably determine that this is the optimal arrangement for the ribs inside the cylinder.
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It has also been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the thickness of the outer shell, number and spacing of annular supporting rings, and the thickness of the annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost) and maximizing strength.
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 Hattori to adequately space the annular rings to provide sufficient strength and minimal weight, including wherein the distance (L) between two consecutive ribs is in the range of minimum 1 cylinder diameter (D) and maximum 2 cylinder diameters (D), thereby resulting in wherein the distance (L) between two consecutive ribs is in the range of minimum 1 cylinder diameter (D) and maximum 2 cylinder diameters (D).
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It has also been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the thickness of the outer shell, number and spacing of annular supporting rings, and the thickness of the annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost) and maximizing strength.
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 Hattori to use plate having a thickness of 3.5-7.5 mm for the body of the roll, because one having ordinary skill in the art could easily determine that this is the optimal thickness and minimal weight for the outer shell, thereby resulting in wherein the wall thickness of the plate material used to form the body is 3.5-7.5 mm.
Ioannou teaches that aluminum or steel are appropriate for constructing a gravure printing cylinder (“Gravure cylinders consist of the base of the cylinder (see FIG. 1 which shows such a cylinder), which is usually made of steel or aluminum,” ¶ 0004).
It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
In this instance, once having ordinary skill in the art could easily substitute steel for the aluminum of Hattori, because this would predictably provide a gravure roll with sufficient strength.
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 Hattori to use steel as the material of construction of the gravure roller, because Ioannou teaches that steel is a well-known material of construction for a gravure cylinder, and this would predictably provide a gravure cylinder made from steel, thereby resulting in wherein a steel plate material is used to form the body.
Regarding claim 4:
Hattori teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hattori does not teach wherein ribs are positioned such that there will be at least 2 of them for each 1 meter of length along the length of the cylindrical body.
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It has also been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the thickness of the outer shell, number and spacing of annular supporting rings, and the thickness of the annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost) and maximizing strength.
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 Hattori such that the annular rings are appropriately spaced to provide optimal strength and minimal weight, including wherein ribs are positioned such that there will be at least 2 of them for each 1 meter of length along the length of the cylindrical body, thereby resulting in wherein ribs are positioned such that there will be at least 2 of them for each 1 meter of length along the length of the cylindrical body.
Regarding claim 5:
Hattori teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hattori does not teach wherein at least 3 ribs are positioned at equal intervals inside the cylindrical body.
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It has also been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the thickness of the outer shell, number and spacing of annular supporting rings, and the thickness of the annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost) and maximizing strength.
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 Hattori such that the annular rings are appropriately equally spaced to provide optimal strength and minimal weight, including wherein the plurality of ribs are positioned at equal intervals inside the cylindrical body, thereby resulting in wherein at least 3 ribs are positioned at equal intervals inside the cylindrical body.
Regarding claim 6:
Hattori teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hattori does not teach wherein the wall thickness of the rib enabling the cylindrical body to be supported from its inner surface is a maximum of 5 mm.
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It has also been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the thickness of the outer shell, number and spacing of annular supporting rings, and the thickness of the annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost) and maximizing strength.
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 Hattori such that the annular rings are appropriately sized to provide optimal strength and minimal weight, including wherein the wall thickness of the rib enabling the cylindrical body to be supported from its inner surface is a maximum of 5 mm. thereby resulting in wherein the wall thickness of the rib enabling the cylindrical body to be supported from its inner surface is a maximum of 5 mm.
Regarding claim 7, Hattori teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hattori also teaches wherein ribs are welded to the inner walls of the cylindrical body with a circumferential welding method (“the reinforcing members (1) are pressed into the cylinder body (2) at predetermined positions, and then fixed in place by spot welding,” ¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 10, Hattori teaches the invention of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Hattori also teaches wherein the cylindrical form comprises a pattern on its outer surface (“a cylinder in a printing press, and is particularly used in a gravure printing press,” ¶ 0001; a pattern on the outer surface of the roller is a necessity for a gravure cylinder).
Regarding claim 11, Hattori teaches the invention of claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above. Hattori also teaches wherein the pattern defines what is to be printed on a printing substrate through transfer of ink from the lightweight rotogravure printing cylinder to the printing substrate (“a cylinder in a printing press, and is particularly used in a gravure printing press,” ¶ 0001; the pattern defining what is printed on the substrate is the entire purpose of the engraved pattern on the gravure cylinder).
Regarding claim 12:
Hattori teaches a rotogravure printing machine, comprising:
a printing cylinder (2, Fig. 1), wherein the printing cylinder comprises:
a hollow, cylindrical form and inlets at both ends of the lateral surface of the cylindrical form that are open so as to allow access to the inner volume (cylindrical body 2, Fig. 1), and wherein
a first cover which enables to close the open inlets of the cylindrical body and a second cover which closes the second inlet at the second end of the cylindrical body (covers 3, Fig. 1),
at least one shaft opening that allows grasping the shaft which enables the cylindrical body to be placed on the printing machine and rotational movement to be transferred therethrough, when it is passed through the center of the cylindrical body (unlabeled openings in 3, Figs. 1 and 2); and
at plurality of ribs in the form of a circular plates positioned along the length of the cylindrical body between the first cover and the second cover, and wherein the ribs enable the middle section of the cylindrical body remaining between the at least one cover to be supported from its inner surface, the ribs having a shaft opening of a size that allows the shaft to pass through the center thereof (annular rings 1, Figs. 1 and 3), wherein the ribs are placed inside the cylindrical body such that the ribs make 360 deg. contact with an inner surface of the cylindrical body to stabilize the cylinder despite a reduced wall thickness (“a ring-shaped reinforcing member (1) having an outer diameter approximately the same as the inner diameter of the cylinder body (2) is provided,” ¶ 0011; “the reinforcing members are pressed into the cylinder body (2) at predetermined positions,” ¶ 0013),
a shaft configured to extend through the shaft openings of the first cover, the second cover, and the ribs, wherein the shaft openings allow releasable grasping of the shaft which enables the printing cylinder to be placed on the rotogravure printing machine and rotational movement to be transferred therethrough, when it is passed through the center of the cylindrical body (flange 3 shows a keyway for a shaft, and a shaft is inherently necessary to allow roller 2 to rotate around an axis as part of a gravure printing machine, Fig. 1).
Hattori does not teach wherein the ribs are spaced at regular intervals such that the ribs are uniformly spaced along the full length of the cylinder;
wherein a steel plate material is used to form the body, the thickness of the steel plate material being 3.5-7.5 mm, and
wherein the distance (L) between two consecutive ribs is in the range of minimum 1 cylinder diameter (D) and maximum 2 cylinder diameters (D).
It has been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would likely be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the number and spacing of annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost), and maximizing strength.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed application to modify Hattori wherein the ribs are spaced at regular intervals such that the ribs are uniformly spaced along the full length of the cylinder, because one having ordinary skill in the art could easily and predictably determine that this is the optimal arrangement for the ribs inside the cylinder.
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It has also been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the thickness of the outer shell, number and spacing of annular supporting rings, and the thickness of the annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost) and maximizing strength.
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 Hattori to adequately space the annular rings to provide sufficient strength and minimal weight, including wherein the distance (L) between two consecutive ribs is in the range of minimum 1 cylinder diameter (D) and maximum 2 cylinder diameters (D), thereby resulting in wherein the distance (L) between two consecutive ribs is in the range of minimum 1 cylinder diameter (D) and maximum 2 cylinder diameters (D).
It has been held that mere changes in size are not capable of patentably distinguishing an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). It has also been held that duplication and rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP §§ 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
In this instance, the person having ordinary skill in the art, who would be a person having a degree in mechanical engineering, has the capability to perform the engineering calculations necessary to ensure the components of the roll have sufficient strength to perform their intended function, including determining the thickness of the outer shell, number and spacing of annular supporting rings, and the thickness of the annular supporting rings, with a goal of minimizing weight (and therefore material cost) and maximizing strength.
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 Hattori to use material having a thickness of 3.5-7.5 mm for the body of the roll, because one having ordinary skill in the art could easily determine that this is the optimal thickness and minimal weight for the outer shell, thereby resulting in wherein the wall thickness of the plate material used to form the body is 3.5-7.5 mm.
Ioannou teaches that aluminum or steel are appropriate for constructing a gravure printing cylinder (“Gravure cylinders consist of the base of the cylinder (see FIG. 1 which shows such a cylinder), which is usually made of steel or aluminum,” ¶ 0004).
It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not sufficient to patentably distinguish an invention over the prior art, as set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
In this instance, once having ordinary skill in the art could easily substitute steel for the aluminum of Hattori, because this would predictably provide a gravure roll with sufficient strength.
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 Hattori to use steel as the material of construction of the gravure roller, because Ioannou teaches that steel is a well-known material of construction for a gravure cylinder, and this would predictably provide a gravure cylinder made from steel, thereby resulting in wherein a steel plate material is used to form the body.
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
21 March 2026
/STEPHEN D MEIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853