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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 18 and 21 – 22 are pending. Claims 19 – 20 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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, 6 – 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohgoshi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,915,570 B1) in view of Yanagisawa (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0327145 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ohgoshi teaches a method (Col. 3, line 6) of making a cleaning roll body (resin roller body, 10) having a core (core body, 21) and a jacket (cylindrical resin-formed body, 12) on the core (21; Fig. 6a), the method comprising the steps of: forming the core (21) inserting the formed core (21) into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket (12) on the formed core (21; Fig. 6a) with a second polymer identical to the first polymer (Col. 20, lines 26 – 31).
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach the method comprising the steps of sequentially: forming the core of a first polymer by injection molding in a first injection mold; removing the injection-molded formed core from the first mold; and thereafter inserting the formed core into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket on the formed core with a second polymer identical to the first polymer.
Yanagisawa, however, teaches the method comprising the steps of sequentially: forming the core (primary molded body, 1) of a first polymer by injection molding (Paragraph [0010]) in a first injection mold (primary mold cavity, 12); removing the injection-molded formed core (Paragraph [0010]) from the first mold (12); and thereafter inserting the formed core (1) into a second injection mold (secondary mold cavity, 31) and overmolding the jacket (Paragraph [0010]) on the formed core (1) with a second polymer identical to the first polymer (Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further the steps of sequentially: forming the core of a first polymer by injection molding in a first injection mold; removing the injection-molded formed core from the first mold; and thereafter inserting the formed core into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket on the formed core with a second polymer identical to the first polymer, as taught by Yanagisawa, to provide a method that combine material strengths, simplifies manufacturing, and delivers high-performance, custom-designed products in a single, integrated process.
Regarding Claim 2, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the composition of the first polymer corresponds to at least 95% by weight with the composition of the second polymer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the composition of the first polymer corresponds to at least 95% by weight with the composition of the second polymer, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the roller (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 3, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the first polymer is identical to the second polymer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the first polymer is identical to the second polymer, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the roller (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 4, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the first polymer has the same density as the second polymer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the first polymer has the same density as the second polymer, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the roller (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 6, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the first polymer and the second polymer are in a mass ratio between 1:2 and 2:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the first polymer and the second polymer are in a mass ratio between 1:2 and 2:1, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the roller (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 7, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the core is formed about a center axis and has an axial extent that is at least five 3 times greater than a radial dimension of the core.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the first polymer and the second polymer are in a mass ratio between 1:2 and 2:1, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Ohgoshi teaches the method wherein the axis radial dimension measured perpendicular (Fig. 6a) thereto and radially of the center axis (Fig. 6a).
Regarding Claim 9, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the center axis passes through a center of gravity of the core.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the center axis passes through a center of gravity of the core, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the roller (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 10, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the core has a maximum diameter between 1.5 cm and 4 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the core has a maximum diameter between 1.5 cm and 4 cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 11, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the core has a length measured parallel to the center axis of between 20 cm and 35 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the core has a length measured parallel to the center axis of between 20 cm and 35 cm, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 14, Ohgoshi teaches the method further comprising the step of: embedding a roller bearing rolling in the core in the first mold (Col. 32, lines 33 – 34).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohgoshi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,915,570 B1) in view of Yanagisawa (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0327145 A1) and Newman et al. (U. S. Patent No. 2015/0174803 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach cooling the core before overmolding it with the jacket.
Newman, however, teaches cooling the core before overmolding it with the jacket (Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include imbedding the jacket with bristles, as taught by Newman, to provide a method that improves forming the overmolded articles.
Regarding Claim 12, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of: imbedding the jacket with bristles.
Newman, however, teaches imbedding the jacket with bristles (Paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include imbedding the jacket with bristles, as taught by Newman, to provide a method that improves forming the overmolded articles for a desired specific task.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohgoshi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,915,570 B1) in view of Yanagisawa (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0327145 A1) and Benson et al. (U. S. Patent No. 2011/0277789 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach the core is formed in the first mold with coupling bumps extending radially into the jacket when same is overmolded on the core.
Benson, however, teaches the core is formed in the first mold with coupling bumps (254; Fig. 2) extending radially into the jacket (256) when same is overmolded on the core (290; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include imbedding the jacket with bristles, as taught by Benson, to provide a method that improves forming the overmolded articles for a desired specific task.
Claims 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohgoshi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,915,570 B1) in view of Yanagisawa (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0327145 A1) and Egler (WO 2009149722 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach the method wherein axially opposite ends of the core are formed in the first mold with axially oppositely open seats.
Egler, however, teaches the method wherein axially opposite ends of the core (12) are formed in the first mold with axially oppositely open seats (recesses, 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include axially opposite ends of the core are formed in the first mold with axially oppositely open seats, as taught by Egler, to provide a method that produces a secure connection between the roller and the device the roller is inserted into.
Regarding Claim 16, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach the method comprising the step before overmolding the jacket of: subsequently fixing the drive member on the core by overmolding of the jacket.
Egler teaches the method comprising the step before overmolding the jacket of: subsequently fixing the drive member on the core by overmolding of the jacket (Paragraphs [0024] and [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further the method comprising the step before overmolding the jacket of: subsequently fixing the drive member on the core by overmolding of the jacket, as taught by Egler, to provide a method that produces a secure connection between the roller and the device the roller is inserted into.
Regarding Claim 17, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 16, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach the method wherein the core has anchor bodies for holding the drive member against rotation relative to the core.
Egler teaches the method wherein the core (12) has anchor bodies (springs, 28) for holding the drive member against rotation relative to the core (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further the method comprising the step before overmolding the jacket of: subsequently fixing the drive member on the core by overmolding of the jacket, as taught by Egler, to provide a method that produces a secure connection between the roller and the device the roller is inserted into.
Regarding Claim 18, Ohgoshi teaches the method according to claim 17, as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach the method wherein the anchor bodies are not of polymer.
Egler teaches the method wherein the anchor bodies (28) are not of polymer (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include the anchor bodies are not of polymer, as taught by Egler, to provide a method that produces a secure connection between the roller and the device the roller is inserted into.
Egler does not explicitly teach the anchor bodies are embedded into the core in the first injection mold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Egler to further include the anchor bodies are embedded into the core in the first injection mold, as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.06).
Claims 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohgoshi et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,915,570 B1) in view of Yanagisawa (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0327145 A1) and Jian (CN 113001894 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Ohgoshi teaches a method (Col. 3, line 6) of making a cleaning roll body (resin roller body, 10) having a core (core body, 21) and a jacket (cylindrical resin-formed body, 12) on the core (21; Fig. 6a), the method comprising the steps of: forming the core (21) inserting the formed core (21) into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket (12) on the formed core (21; Fig. 6a) with a second polymer identical to the first polymer (Col. 20, lines 26 – 31).
Ohgoshi does not explicitly teach the method comprising the steps of sequentially: forming the core of a first polymer by injection molding in a first injection mold; removing the injection-molded formed core from the first mold; and thereafter inserting the formed core into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket on the formed core with a second polymer identical to the first polymer; providing the formed core in the first mold with radially projecting anchor bodies not of a polymer; removing the formed core with the drive member and anchor bodies from the first mold; and fitting a drive member to the formed core over the anchor bodies; inserting the formed core with the anchor bodies and drive member into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket on the formed core with a second polymer so as to fix the drive member via the anchor bodies to the core.
Yanagisawa, however, teaches the method comprising the steps of sequentially: forming the core (primary molded body, 1) of a first polymer by injection molding (Paragraph [0010]) in a first injection mold (primary mold cavity, 12); removing the injection-molded formed core (Paragraph [0010]) from the first mold (12); and thereafter inserting the formed core (1) into a second injection mold (secondary mold cavity, 31) and overmolding the jacket (Paragraph [0010]) on the formed core (1) with a second polymer identical to the first polymer (Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further the steps of sequentially: forming the core of a first polymer by injection molding in a first injection mold; removing the injection-molded formed core from the first mold; and thereafter inserting the formed core into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket on the formed core with a second polymer identical to the first polymer, as taught by Yanagisawa, to provide a method that combine material strengths, simplifies manufacturing, and delivers high-performance, custom-designed products in a single, integrated process.
Jian further teaches a method of making a cleaning-roll body having a core and a jacket on the core (Abstract), providing the formed core in the first mold with radially projecting anchor bodies not of a polymer (Paragraph [0191]); removing the formed core with the drive member and anchor bodies from the first mold (Figs. 20 and 21; Paragraph [0080]); and fitting a drive member (transmission shaft, 35 with transmission sleeve, 33 and gear, 343) to the formed core over the anchor bodies (second guide member, 3321; Paragraph [0285]); inserting the formed core with the anchor bodies (Figs. 17 – 23) and drive member (35) into a second injection mold and overmolding the jacket on the formed core with a second polymer so as to fix the drive member via the anchor bodies to the core (Paragraph [0285]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include forming the core of a polymer by injection molding in a first injection mold, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 22, Ohgoshi as modified, teaches the method of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ohgoshi does not teach wherein the drive member is a gear.
Jian, however, teaches the method wherein the drive member is a gear (gear, 343; Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ohgoshi to further include wherein the drive member is a gear, as taught by Jian, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated 01/02/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Yanagisawa.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights