DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 & 6-13 are pending as amended on 02/13/26.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on February 13, 2026. Claim 2 has been amended as a result of the previous action; the grounds of prior art rejections have been maintained. Claims 12-13 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With regard to new claims 12-13, the repeated, unclear phrases “gap has a constant length” do not appear in the original disclosure, and appear improper, as gaps generally have a “width” that describes their spacing, and these would seem to have a “length” that air molecules travel around the circumference of the rollers therein (and Applicants have not identified any support for these new dimension limitations – the instant application appears only to discuss “substantially cylindrical” rollers/housings). Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 & 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Main, US 3,640,543 in view of Tsukada et al., US 4,101,364 and further in view of Starbuck, US 3,334,908.
With regard to claims 1-2, Main teaches a known type of sealing device useful for covering the sheet-feed entrances & exits of vacuum chambers, said seal device comprising first & second parallel conveying rollers (22) for carrying the sheets through the chamber, mounted in corresponding-shaped holding members (28) which define a small air gap between respective circumferential surfaces, as well as third & fourth parallel rigid backup rollers (26) without rubber covers and similarly corresponding holders/gaps (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-4]). Said holding members are rotatably fixed on the frame of the vacuum sealing chamber as shown in the figures.
While this reference does not expressly disclose whether these sheet transmitting rollers comprise ‘rotation mechanisms’ (i.e. driver motors or the like), as driven or non-driven rollers are the only possibilities for such a device, the use of a generic drive means for some or all of the rollers would have been prima facie obvious to try with predictable success. Further, this was a well-known design in this art, as shown for example by Tsukada, which explicitly teaches motor-driven (6/34) sealing rollers, synchronized by gears (32) for conveying the work (throughout, e.g. [Col. 6, 26-31 & FIGS. 2-4]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Main & Tsukada, in order to provide a driven, elastic roller seal chamber which moves the work, under seal, using only known designs with predictable success.
While Main is silent as to the relative gaps between rollers & housing (e.g. clearance between a first conveying roller & housing vs. clearance between a third, backup roller & housing), it was known in this art as suggested by Starbuck that one may make the clearance between a backup roller & housing as small as possible to improve vacuum effect, wherein a rigid metal backup roller can provide for a relatively smaller gap relative to a rubber roller which is prone to grabbing the side of the housing (e.g. [Col. 3, 22-32 & FIG. 1]). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings & suggestions of Starbuck with those of Main & Tsukada, in order to increase vacuum effect in such a device by minimizing clearance across a steel roller relative to the clearance across a rubber roller, using only known designs with predictable success.
With regard to claim 3, the prior art also teaches mating rubber roller covers (24) for transporting sheets of varied thicknesses [Col. 3, 1-4].
With regard to claims 6-8, again, Main also teaches parallel backup rollers (26) without rubber covers (i.e. implicitly rigid) which conduct heat [Col. 2, 3-6], and are either implicitly rigid metal rollers, or prima facie obvious to make from such a material, in order to achieve the desired end using only art-conventional material choices with predictable success (steel rollers are also taught by Starbuck as noted above).
With regard to claim 9, duplication of the motors taught by Tsukada would also have been prima facie obvious; see MPEP 2144.04(VI)B (further, the prior art suggests further geared connections to driving means [Col. 6, 26-31]).
With regard to claim 10, Main also teaches that the ends of rollers comprise shaft members received into cavities of the holding member with rotational bearings (30) [FIG. 2], and while this reference does not expressly disclose the use of ‘rotation sealing members’ (i.e. O-rings or the like) at this location, it does teach the general well-known use of O-rings (62) to seal gaps between two parts [Col. 4, 7-9], and further, Tsukada teaches O-rings (i.e. ‘oil seals’) and the like [Col. 6, 24-26] which would have been prima facie obvious to reproduce at any desired location between parts in this device, in order to further seal air gaps as needed in a well-known fashion.
With regard to claim 11, the vacuum chamber described by Main must implicitly comprise a vacuum pump; such is also explicitly taught by Tsukada (7) [FIG. 2].
With regard to claims 12-13, all cited prior art shows examples with substantially cylindrical housings & centered cylindrical rollers, as in the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed February 13, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As has been noted previously, the cited prior art references are all directed to minimizing the widths of air gaps between chamber sealing rollers and their complementary shaped housings. These known systems utilize both elastomeric feed rollers & rigid backing rollers, and as noted above, Starbuck is an example of prior art which discusses known material principles, such as the risk of deformable elastomeric rollers potentially catching against the housing, thus suggesting to one of ordinary skill in this art that even smaller gaps can be designed for rigid rollers relative to deformable rollers, and thus it would be obvious to minimize rigid roller gaps to be even smaller, relative to those of deformable rollers. Applicants’ argument that Starbuck does not explicitly teach an example with such relative gap differences has not addressed or refuted the finding that the overall teachings do suggest minimizing these gaps to very tight tolerances, and that tolerances can be even smaller for rigid rollers than they can for elastomeric rollers, and that it therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to arrive at the claimed relative gap widths based on the obvious suggestions of these multiple teachings. Additionally, the newly claimed constant gap sizes (which do not appear to be explicitly discussed in the original disclosure as claimed) also do not appear to patentably distinguish the claims, as all prior art systems appear to teach these same relationships between housings & rollers. Therefore the instant claims as written are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
Conclusion
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 JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights