Final Rejection
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the limitations “polygon body” as recited in claim 16 line 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, member element polygon body is cited as member (2) in the drawings however member 2 generally points to an area in Figure 2 without specifically contacting a specific structure member in the drawings.
Therefore, the limitations “plurality of discrete webs” as recited in claim 16 line 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 35-39 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Originally presented claims 16-33 disclosed an apparatus of “a guide roller comprising a polygon body.” Newly added claims 35-39 read on a method for producing a guide roller.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 35-39 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16,17,19,20,24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Appels (DE 4340724 A1).
Referring to claim 16. Appels discloses a guide roller (1) comprising a polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1), wherein the polygon body comprises a base body (13) made of at least a first material (outer fiber-reinforced surface layer; 7), wherein, over a circumference of the base body (13), the polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1) further comprises a plurality of discrete webs (6) applied to the base body (circumference of 13), wherein a plurality of discrete webs (6) comprises a second material (12; a synthetic resin matrix) which differs from the first material (outer fiber-reinforced surface layer; 7),
wherein the plurality of discrete webs (6) are unconnected to one another (raised web portion of 6 is separated from each other by gaps 2), and wherein each of the plurality of discrete webs (6) extends (the center portion of 6) from one end of the base body (left end of the base body 13 as seen in Figure 1) to an opposite end of the base body (right end of the base body 13 as seen in Figure 1).
Referring to claim 17. Appels discloses a guide roller (1) comprising a polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1),
wherein the base body (13) of the polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1) has an essentially cylindrical jacket surface arranged around a longitudinal axis of the base body (the base body 13 consisting extends over the surface of the roller).
Referring to claim 19. Appels discloses a guide roller (1) comprising a polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1),
wherein the base body (13) at least partially comprises a coating (11) comprising a third material (radially outside fibers).
Referring to claim 20. Appels discloses a guide roller (1) comprising a polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1),
wherein the second material (12) of the at least one web is selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy, and a ceramic (This layer can, for example, be abrasion-resistant and consist of a ceramic material or hard metal, or it can, for example, be metallic and serve as the basis for the electroless or electrolytic deposition of a metal finish).
Referring to claim 24. Appels discloses a guide roller (1) comprising a polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1),
wherein the at least one web (6) is arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis of the base body (see Figure 2).
Referring to claim 34. Appels discloses a guide roller (1) comprising a polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1),
wherein each of the plurality of webs (6) has the same cross-section over its entire length (cross section of web 6 when viewed from end of the roller and a cut line extending from member end 4 to end 4; See Figure 1; see Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appels (DE 4340724 A1) in view of Karger (US 6,896,647).
Referring to claim 18. Appels does not specifically disclose the first material selected from the group consisting of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, steel, and a steel alloy.
Karger discloses an elastic roller comprising a polygon body (body of 10; Figure 1),
wherein the first material (material of 10) is selected from the group consisting of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, steel, and a steel alloy (While the hard roller has a very smooth surface that includes, e.g., steel or chilled iron; Col. 1, line 26).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Appels to include the first material as being comprised of a steel material as taught by Karger because the steel base material would provide a more durable roller base material that would exhibit reduced wearing with usage.
It would have been further obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first material as being selected from the group consisting of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, steel, and a steel alloy, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Referring to claims 20,21 and 22. Appels discloses a guide roller (1) comprising a polygon body (body of 1; Figure 1),
wherein the second material (12) of the at least one web is selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy, and a ceramic (This layer can, for example, be abrasion-resistant and consist of a ceramic material or hard metal, or it can, for example, be metallic and serve as the basis for the electroless or electrolytic deposition of a metal finish).
It would have been further obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the second material as being selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal alloy, and a ceramic, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 23,30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appels (DE 4340724 A1) in view of Fehr (US 2,108,013).
Referring to claims 23,30 and 32. Appels does not specifically disclose wherein an adhesive layer is attached to the base body in a region of the at least one web.
Fehr discloses a roller where in an adhesive layer is attached to the base body in a region of the at least one web; Page 1 Col. 2 line 52).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Appels to include an adhesive layer attached to the base body in a region of the at least one web as taught by Fehr because the adhesive layer would aid in adhering the at least one web to the base body.
Claims 25-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appels (DE 4340724 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 2006/0191139).
Referring to claims 28,29 and 31. Appels does not specifically disclose wherein the polygon body comprising the base body and the at least one web is at least partially coated with a plating.
Hayashi discloses a roller manufacturing wherein the polygon body comprising the base body and the at least one web is at least partially coated with a plating (plating layer 32; Figure 3) (roller 20 is machined; Para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Appels to include the polygon body comprising the base body and the at least one web is at least partially coated with a plating as taught by Fehr because the at least one web can be configured to comprises a harder contact surface resulting in an lower wear resistance.
Referring to claims 26 and 27. Hayashi discloses a roller manufacturing wherein the guide roller (20) is embodied as journal roller comprising roller journals (22; Figure 2) attached to the polygon body.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appels (DE 4340724 A1) in view of Sinykin (US 8,858,750).
Referring to claim 33. Appels does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one web is arranged helically on the jacket surface of the base body.
Sinykin discloses a method of manufacturing roller wherein the at least one web is arranged helically on the jacket surface of the base body (see Figure 9).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Appels to include wherein the at least one web is arranged helically on the jacket surface of the base body as taught by Sinykin because the at least one web can more easily manufactured.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See modified rejections including all newly amended limitations cited above.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the drawings objected to under 37CFR 1.83(a) are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM EST.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/RAKESH KUMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651