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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 4/1/2024. Claims 1, 7, and 15 have been amended. Claim 16 is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection utilizing DE102011007305 and Roof (US 8,323,438) as primary references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner submits the film having openings or grooves, a system to apply pressure to the film, a source of electromagnetic radiation is not described as being used with a loop and would seem counter intuitive when using this embodiment.
Claim 1 recites the flexible film has proximal end each mechanically connected to a holding element. Claim 16, dependent on Claim 1, teaches a winding unit. Exmainer submits when using a winding unit the “ends” are wrapped around a first unit [61] or [62], which is described as mechanically connected to the holding unit, and thus distinct therefrom. Thus, when using a winding unit, the ends are taught as mechanically connected to the winding unit and not to the holding element. The winding unit, not the ends are mechanically connected to the holding element. Claim 1 appears directed to the embodiment of Figure 5, which is distinct from the embodiment of Claim 16, shown in Fig. 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10, 12, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE102011007305 (wherein all citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 10, 12 and 13, DE102011007305 teaches a coating module to coat a substrate [3] with a coating composition comprising:
a coating device adapted to apply a layer of coating composition [2] on a first surface of the substrate [3] (See page 1, paragraph [0001] and page 9, paragraph [0023], teaching a coating is applied thus implying a device to apply said coating; note even if a coating were poured from a container, the container is a coating device as claimed that is arranged to coat during said coating) and a flexible film [4] comprising two opposite proximal ends that are mechanically connected to a holding element [17],[14],[15] forming a loop and a free distal portion [4.3] configured to be in contact with the layer of coating composition [2] on the first surface of the substrate (See Fig. 3 and page 12, paragraphs [0031]-[0032], wherein the supports [14],[15] are fixed to the base rail [17] forming a holding element; note bendable band [4] is a flexible film as claimed forming a loop between the ends; and not any film looping back on itself to form an at least partial enclosed space forms a loop). Examiner notes is it clear the applied coating is applied such that the band [4] lies over it before it is dried, thus enabling regulation of the coating via squeegee, and the substrate is transported along the path [L] by a roller [3.2] conveyor system, which may also be considered a coating drum as in Claim 12, which since rotating implicitly has a system to rotate it about its axis (See page 9, paragraph [0023]). The preamble of Claim 12 states “a system for producing an endless ribbon.” However, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Examiner submits no endless belt is claimed and the coating system as claimed could have applied a coating to any web [3], whether it is continuous or part of an endless belt. If Applicant wants a more specific interpretation, they must claim the endless belt as part of the system.
Regarding Claim 5, DE102011007305 teaches the band may include fibers (See page 12-13, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, DE102011007305 teach a system [6] adapted to apply pressure to the film [4] (See Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, DE102011007305 teaches the base rail [17], i.e. holding element [17], is on a squeegee beam, i.e. a frame as claimed (See page 13, paragraph [0034]-[0035], and notes it clear an end, i.e. lateral extremity, of the rail [17] is secured to the beam).
Regarding Claim 16, DE102011007305 teach a winding unit [8],[9] for winding/unwinding the band [4] (See page 10, paragraph [0026] and Fig. 1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102011007305 as applied to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, DE102011007305 the device of claim 1 as described above. DE102011007305 teaches rail [17] connected to the beam as described above, but doesn’t explicitly teach removability. However, according to In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961), it is not inventive to make a cap separable “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of the holder to which the cap is applied…” Therefore, Examiner posits that, similarly, it is not inventive to make the rail [17] separable the beam would clearly enable easy access to replace the band or repair any aspects of the squeegee device [30].
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 10, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roof (US 8,323,438).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 13 and 16, Roof teaches a coating module to coat a substrate [S] with a coating composition comprising:
a coating device [20] adapted to apply a layer of coating composition [I] on a first surface of the substrate [S] (See Abstract and Fig. 1), and a flexible film [30] comprising two opposite proximal ends that are mechanically connected to holding elements forming a loop (See Fig. 1, illustrating proximal ends spooled on a shaft, implicitly indicating a mechanically connection to said shafts, or at least rending such a connection obvious to secure the ends of the web securely on the shaft, the film looping between the spools) and a free distal portion configured to be in contact with the layer of coating composition [I] on the first surface of the substrate (See Fig. 1, wherein Examiner submits the distal portion of the loop in contact with the substrate [S] is a free distal portion as claimed). Examiner notes is it clear the applied coating is applied such that the web [30] lies over it before it is cured at curing station [34] (See Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 20-32). Roof et al. doesn’t specifically teach the ends are connected to the same holding element. However, its clear the shafts must be mounted on a support and it certainly would have been obvious to incorporate them on the same support such as a wall or a rail to stabilize them relative to each other. Any such rail or wall support each shaft is a holding element as claimed.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Examiner submits the bottom rollers of the nips illustrated in figure 1 are support rollers in a conveyor system as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Roof teaches a heater [22] that clearly heats the substrate [S] since it is directly at said substrate [2], said heater [22] thus being a temperature regulator as claimed (See col. 2, lines 58-63).
Regarding Claim 6, Roof illustrates a nip [32] that clearly applies a pressure on the distal portion of the web [30] (See Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Roof teaches the flexible film [30] is transparent to a UV EM radiation source [34] that is emitted therethrough (See Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 10-19).
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ageishi (US 2013/0095254) in view of DE102011007305.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 10, 11 and 13, Ageishi teaches a transfer printing apparatus, comprising: a coating device [12D], and a blade [12E] wherein the substrate [10] is an endless ribbon (See page 8, paragraphs [0134]-[0136] and Fig. 1), a conveyor system comprising a set of rollers [10A],[10B] adapted to transport the substrate [10] along a path, a printing roller adapted [16a] to transport a printing support [P] in contact with the first surface of at least a portion of the substrate [10]; a printhead [16a],[10C],[18] arranged to thermally transfer a part of the coating composition [12B] from the first surface of the substrate to the printing support [P] in contact with the substrate [10] (See page 8, paragraph [0145]-[0147] and page 9, paragraph [0153], wherein transfer may involve heating thus making it a thermal transfer as claimed).
Ageishi is silent as to the exact structure of the blade [12D] controlling thickness and thus does not teach the flexible sheet structure. However, similar device regulating the thickness of coatings applied to substrates, such as is taught in Ageishi, are well-known to comprise flexible films with a free distal end and a proximal end held by a holding element, so as to, for example, extend service lives of the blade (See, for example, DE102011007305, Fig. 3 and page 1, paragraph [0001], and pages 3-4, paragraphs [0006]-[0008], teaching a metering/thickness controlling device as in Ageishi with the specific advantage of having reduced wear, and having a looped film on a holder as described above). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a squeegee/blade in Ageishi to regulate the thickness of the coating [12B], as required therein, having a structure such as in DE102011007305. Sucha design would have predictably provided a suitable structure for accomplishing the requirement in Ageishi while extending the service life of the blade.
Regarding Claim 4, Ageishi teaches a temperature regulator [30] configured to heat a portion of the substrate (See page 8, paragraph [0143]-[0144]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0179075) in view of DE102011007305.
Regarding Claim 1-3, 10, 13, and 14, Kim et al. teaches a coating device [130],[140] applying two layers of coatings [20],[30] separated from one another by a distance (See Fig. 2) and each controlled and smoothed in thickness by respective thickness controlling rollers [161],[162] (See Fig. 2 and page 3, paragraph [0050]). Kim et al. also teaches a conveyor system [120] with support rollers (See Fig. 2).
Kim et al. fails to specifically teach flexible films with holders. However, it is well-known looped flexible films in holders are a suitable alternative to for coating thickness control, such as are taught in Kim et al., and to control and smooth the thickness of a coating (See, for example, DE102011007305, Fig. 3 and page 1, paragraph [0001], and pages 3-4, paragraphs [0006]-[0008], teaching a thickness controlling device as in Kim et al. with the specific advantage of having reduced wear, and having a looped film on a holder as described above). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilized known and equivalent thickness control devices to the scrapers [161],[162] in Kim et al., such as a flexible film device as in DE102011007305. Doing so would have predictably provided an equivalent and suitable thickness control and smoothing device such as is known to be suitable for such applications in the prior art.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, and 15 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20100118344 (wherein all textual citations are directed to the English translation provided) in view of DE102011007305.
Regarding Claims, 1, 6, 10, and 15, KR20100118344 teaches a method to coat a substrate, comprising: providing a coating device [120] and a coating thinning and smoothing device [160]; coating a first surface of the substrate [100] with coating composition [105] with the coating device [120] to form a layer of coating composition [105] with the coating device [120], and transporting the coating device [120] and coating thinning and smoothing device [160] along a predetermined path so that a portion of the coating thinning and smoothing device [160] lays over the layer of coating composition [105] before its solidification, dryness or complete cure (See pages 10-11, paragraphs [0018]-[0021] and Figs. 4-7, wherein the coating device [120] and coating thinning and smoothing device [160] each are transported so the coating thinning and smoothing device [160] lays over and smooths and thins the coating [105]).
KR20100118344 does not teach a flexible sheet structure for the coating thinning and smoothing device [160], such as the standard doctor blade therein. However, the coating thinning and smoothing devices regulating the thickness of coatings applied to substrates, such as is taught in KR20100118344, are well-known to comprise flexible films looped with a free distal end and proximal ends held by a holding element, so as to, for example, extend service lives of the KR20100118344 (See, for example, DE102011007305, Fig. 3 and page 1, paragraph [0001], and pages 3-4, paragraphs [0006]-[0008], teaching a thickness controlling device as in Kim et al. with the specific advantage of having reduced wear, and having a looped film on a holder as described above). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a coating thinning and smoothing device in KR20100118344 to regulate the thickness of the coating, as required therein, having a looped flexible film disposed in a holder as in DE102011007305. Such coating thinning and smoothing devices are known in the prior art to regular coating thickness as desired in KR20100118344 and thus would have predictably provide a suitable structure for doing so therein while extending the service life of the blade.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights