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 .
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, each of the two first sealing members formed as a semicircle shaped bearing as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, the dispenser unit formed as a flexible tube with a pinhole as recited in claim 18 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor (US 5,983,797) in view of Elbers-Schrichten et al. (EP 3 193 045 A1) and Broch (WO 2007/102136 A2).
With respect to claim 1, Secor teaches a sealing system (Fig. 2) comprising:
two first sealing members 28, 30, 42 which are each disposed at opposite lateral outermost ends of a doctor blade chamber 14, 16 which in operational mode is adapted to partially receive a rotatable roller 10, 12 for applying ink 18 from the doctor blade chamber onto the rotatable roller, and
two second sealing members 58 which are each disposed at opposite lateral ends 60 of the rotatable roller 10, 12 which in operational mode is configured to extend partially into the doctor blade chamber 14, 16 for receiving ink 18 from the doctor blade chamber,
wherein a curvature of outermost ends (i.e., at 46) of the two first sealing members 28, 30, 42 at the opposite lateral outermost ends of the doctor blade chamber 14, 16 corresponds to a curvature of outermost ends of the rotatable roller 10, 12 at opposite lateral outermost ends of the rotatable roller (see Fig. 2),
wherein in operational mode, each of the two first sealing members 28, 30 is in rotating contact with each of the two second sealing members 58 such that a leakage of ink at the opposite lateral outermost ends of the doctor blade chamber is prevented. See, in particular, Figures 1-2 and column 3, lines 20-22 and 39-44 and column 4, lines 1-7. Note that the bearer surfaces 58 of Secor function as second sealing members as recited.
While Secor does not specifically teach the first sealing members include a first material coated with a second material, Elbers-Schrichten et al. teach the provision of a sealing member for a doctor blade chamber, wherein the sealing member includes a first material coated with a second material, is well known in the art. See, in particular, paragraphs [0016]-[0018], [0036], and [0040] and Figure 5 of the English language translation of Elbers-Schrichten et al., which teaches the sealing members 501 including a first material coated with a second material. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first sealing members of Secor to include a first material coated with a second material, as taught by Elbers-Schrichten et al., to allow the first sealing members to be constructed of materials that provide effective sealing with the roller surface, minimize friction with the roller, and are resistant to the printing ink in the chamber.
Additionally, while Secor does teach each sealing member 28, 30, 42 is formed as a bearing and each bearing has a curvature that corresponds to a curvature of a perimeter of the rotatable roller 10, 12, Secor does not specifically teach each of the two first sealing members is formed as a semicircle shaped bearing. However, the provision of a sealing system for a doctor blade chamber including each of the two first sealing members being formed as a semicircular shaped bearing is well known in the art, as exemplified by the sealing members 8, 9 of the doctor blade chamber as shown in Figures 1-4A of Broch and described in line 36 of page 13-line 20 of page 14. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sealing members of Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten with a semicircular shape, as it would simply require the obvious substitution of one known sealing member shape for another to provide a doctor blade chamber configuration that allows for improved sealing effects and efficient ink deposition on the roller by fitting the seal and the roller in a manner such that the roller is more completely contained within the doctor blade chamber.
With respect to claim 3, Secor teaches wherein each of the two first sealing members 28, 30, 42 is a lip seal.
With respect to claim 4, Secor teaches wherein each of the two second sealing members 58 is ring-shaped and extends continuously around a perimeter of the rotatable roller 10, 12, as shown in Figure 2.
With respect to claim 5, Secor teaches wherein each of the two second sealing members 58 can be made of a variety of materials such as from a “harder” material than each of the two first sealing members 28, 30, 42, as described in column 4, lines 33-44.
With respect to claim 6, Secor teaches wherein each of the two first sealing members 28, 30, 42 can be made from a variety of materials such as a “harder” material than each of the two second sealing members 58, as described in column 4, lines 33-44.
With respect to claim 8, Secor teaches where the sealing system further comprises a lubrication unit 64 which is adapted to lubricate a contact surface between each of the two first sealing members 28, 30, 42 and each of the two second sealing members 58 with lubricant, as described in column 4, lines 15-32.
With respect to claims 12-13, note Elbers-Schrichten et al. teaches the provision of a sealing member comprising a first material being a rubber material (i.e., EPDM) and the second material being a plastic material (i.e., Teflon (PTFE) or polyurethane), wherein the selection of the materials are made based upon the ink being used. See, in particular, paragraphs [0016]-[0018], [0036], and [0040]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first sealing members of Secor to include a rubber that is coated with a second material such as a plastic as taught by Elbers-Schrichten et al. to allow the first sealing members to include materials that provide effective sealing with the roller surface, minimizes friction with the roller, and is resistant to the printing ink in the chamber.
With respect to claim 14, again note Elbers-Schrichten et al. teaches the provision of a sealing member comprising a first material being a rubber material (i.e., EPDM) and the second material being a plastic material (i.e., Teflon (PTFE) or polyurethane). See paragraphs [0016]-[0018] for example. While Elbers-Schrichten et al. teaches the use of the fluoropolymer PTFE for the second material and does not specifically teach the second material is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), note that there is no unobviousness in the selection of a known material based upon its known properties. For example, fluoropolymers are a family of plastics that are widely recognized for their chemical and thermal resistance, low friction and non-stick properties, and mechanical strength. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the materials for the first sealing members of Secor to be ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber coated with polyvinylidene fluoride as it would simply require the obvious selection of known material based on their known properties to provide first sealing members that provide effective sealing with the roller surface, minimizes friction with the roller, and are resistant to the printing ink in the chamber.
With respect to claim 15, note that the sealing system of Secor shows that there is no gap between the doctor blade chamber and the rotatable roller, as illustrated in Figure 1 and described in column 4, lines 11-14.
With respect to claim 16, note that Secor teaches the material of the second sealing members can be a variety of materials in column 4, lines 36-44 including rubber compositions. While Secor does not specifically teach the provision of the sealing members being thermoplastic polymer, the selection of a known material based upon its known properties is an obvious mechanical expedient. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the material for the second sealing members to be any material, such as thermoplastic polymer, to provide seals with flexibility, strength and chemical resistance to allow for improved sealing of the doctor blade chamber as desired.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor (US 5,983,797) in view of Elbers-Schrichten et al. (EP 3 193 045 A1) and Broch (WO 2007/102136 A2) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 12-16 above, and further in view of Pforte et al. (US 2020/0376828 A1).
With respect to claims 10-11, Secor as modified teaches a sealing system including a lubrication unit but does not teach a lubrication unit that includes a compressed gas unit with a gas channel and nozzle. Pforte et al. teaches it is well known in the art to provide an inking unit having a sealing system that includes a lubrication unit that is comprised of a compressed gas unit, wherein the lubrication unit further includes a gas channel 22, 28 and nozzle 20, 21, 29 which are fluidly connected to each other, the compressed gas unit adapted to provide a gaseous lubricant (i.e., compressed air) between each of the two first sealing members and the two ends of the roller such that in operation mode each of the sealing members are separated by a layer of gas. See, for example, the compressed gas unit, gas channel and nozzle(s) as described in paragraphs [0043]-[0049] and [0054] of Pforte et al. and shown in Figure 2. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sealing system of Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al. and Broch to include a lubrication unit as taught by Forte et al. to provide appropriate lubrication between the sealing members and improved sealing of the sealing members as desired.
Claims 9, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor (US 5,983,797) in view of Elbers-Schrichten et al. (EP 3 193 045 A1) and Broch (WO 2007/102136 A2) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 12-16 above, and further in view of Hoffman et al. (CN 102259483 A).
With respect to claim 9, Secor as modified by Elber-Schrichten et al. and Broch teaches a sealing system including a lubrication unit but does not teach the details of the lubrication unit as recited. In particular, Secor teaches a sealing system including a lubrication unit including a synthetic oil (see column 4, lines 25-31) but is silent with respect to the details of the lubrication unit and whether it includes a reservoir unit, pump, lubrication channel, dispenser unit. Hoffman et al. teaches it is well known in the art to provide an inking unit 14 with a sealing system 15, 16 that includes a lubrication unit 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 that is comprised of a reservoir unit (i.e., the lubricant tank/reservoir 28) holding the lubricating medium. Furthermore, note that Hoffman et al. teaches the use of a pump 27 assigned to the reservoir unit 28, the reservoir unit being fluidly connected to at least one lubrication channel 25, 26, the at least one lubrication channel extending from the reservoir unit towards a dispenser unit 21, 22 which is assigned to the contact surface between each of the two first sealing members the end surfaces of the roller. See the English language translation of Hoffman et al. for details. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lubrication unit of Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al. and Broch to have the configuration of the lubrication unit as taught by Hoffman et al., as it would simply require the obvious substitution of one lubrication unit for another to provide appropriate lubrication between the sealing members and improved sealing as desired.
With respect to claim 19, note that Hoffman et al. teaches the at least one lubrication channel 25, 26 extends along a front side of a housing of the doctor blade chamber 11, the front side being assigned to one lateral end of the doctor blade chamber, as shown in Figure 2 of Hoffman et al. Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lubrication unit of Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al. and Broch to have the configuration of the lubrication unit as taught by Hoffman et al., as it would simply require the obvious substitution of one lubrication unit for another to provide appropriate lubrication between the sealing members and roller and to provide improved sealing as desired.
With respect to claim 20, note both Secor and Hoffman et al. each teach the provision of a sealing system including the use of a lubricant--for example, motor oil or propylene glycol (in column 4, lines 15-32 of Secor) or water or other diluent (paragraph [0017] of Hoffman et al.). While none of Secor, Elbers-Schrichten et al., Broch, or Hoffman et al. explicitly teach the use of a synthetic oil lubricant selected from the group consisting of poly-alpha-olefin and polyalkyleneglycol, note that these materials are well known synthetic oil lubricants and the selection of the particular lubricant composition involves the obvious selection of a known material based upon its known properties. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lubricant in the system of Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al., Broch and Hoffman et al. to be any desired synthetic oil lubricant, such as poly-alpha-olefin or polyalkyleneglycol, to provide the desired lubricating effect between the doctor blade chamber and the roller.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor (US 5,983,797) in view of Elbers-Schrichten et al. (EP 3 193 045 A1) and Broch (WO 2007/102136 A2) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 12-16 above, and further in view of Schoelzig et al. (EP 1 279 500 A2).
With respect to claim 21, Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al. and Broch teach a sealing system as recited with the exception of having a plurality of valves disposed between the lubrication unit and a plurality of doctor blade chambers, wherein each valve is electronically controllable to selectively supply lubricant to a respective doctor blade chamber. Schoelzig et al. teach it is well known in the art to have a sealing system for a printing press including a plurality of doctor blade chambers (note Fig. 1 shows two metering systems 13 each including a doctor blade chamber 16) and a plurality of valves 19 disposed between a lubrication unit 22 and the doctor blade chambers 16, wherein the valves 19 are electronically controllable to selectively supply lubricant to a respective doctor blade chamber, as described in the English language translation of Schoelzig et al. and shown in Figures 1-3. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sealing system of Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al. and Broch to include a plurality of doctor blade chambers and a plurality of valves and electronic control of the valves to selectively supply lubricant to a respective doctor blade chamber as needed to provide controlled supply of the lubricant to better prevent frictional moments at the contact points between the sealing system and the application roller.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor (US 5,983,797) in view of Elbers-Schrichten et al. (EP 3 193 045 A1), Broch (WO 2007/102136 A2) and Hoffman et al. (CN 102259483 A) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 12-16 above, and further in view of Tominaga et al. (JP 2000-168051 A).
With respect to claim 18, Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al., Broch, and Hoffman et al. teaches a sealing system as recited with the exception of the dispenser unit comprising a flexible tube having at least one pinhole releasing the lubricant. Tominaga et al. teaches it is well known in the art to have a sealing system including a lubricant dispenser unit comprising a flexible tube having at least one pinhole releasing the lubricant, as shown by the tubes 83 include at least one hole (i.e., the hole at the end of the tube) for releasing the lubricant, as illustrated in the embodiment of Figure 1 described in the English language translation of Tominaga et al. IN view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dispenser unit of the sealing system of Secor as modified by Elbers-Schrichten et al., Broch, and Hoffman et al. to include a flexible tube with at least one pinhole for releasing the lubricant as this is simply the substitution of one known dispenser configuration for another to allow for better delivery of the lubricant to the contact surface between the first sealing members and second sealing members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections.
With respect to the drawing objection regarding the semicircle shaped bearing, the applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the subject matter sough to be patented because the drawings show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, provide information essential for proper understanding of the invention and for understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. The Examiner disagrees with this argument for the following reasons: While the Examiner agrees that the specification provides support for the description of the semicircle shaped bearing in page 9, lines 23-25, the Examiner maintains that the drawings fail to properly illustrate each of the two first sealing members 62 formed as a semicircle shaped bearing. It is noted by the Examiner that the “semicircle shaped bearing” is the primary focus of applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection and therefore, a proper illustration of the subject matter is important to the proper understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. Based on the context of the arguments presented by applicant with respect to the prior art rejection, it appears that applicant intends for “semicircle shaped bearing” to mean a surface that extends exactly 180° around the perimeter 58 of the roller 46. There is no illustration in any of the drawing Figures of the sealing members 62 extending 180° around the surface of the roller 46. Figure 2A is described as being a “top view” (page 6, lines 18-20) and therefore does not clearly illustrate the recited shape. Additionally, while Figures 3-4 are described as cross-sectional views (page 6, lines 23-27) and thereby should illustrate the recited shape, there is no semicircle shaped element 62 that is shown in Figures 3-4 in that the element labeled 62 in Figures 3-4 does not appear to have any curved surface at all and does not appear to extend anywhere close to the what would illustrate the “semicircular” extension around the roller as described in the specification and argued by applicant. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claimed subject matter regarding the semicircle shaped bearing in claim 1 has not been properly illustrated in the drawings.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, applicant argues that Broch fails to teach a “semicircle shaped bearing” because the walls 8, 9 as shown in the Figures of Broch extend around the roller 17 past the 180° mark and therefore are not a “semicircle” (i.e., a half circle) as defined by Merriam Webster. The Examiner disagrees with this argument for several reasons. First, as described in MPEP 2125 (II), “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value….“[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” In the instant case, it is noted that Broch describes on page 14, lines 8-12, “Assembling said hollow casing 2, with partitioning walls 8, 9 and doctor blades 12, 13 and using the anilox roller 17 as a delimiting wall, an ink chamber 16 with a general shape of a semi-circular tubular volume with a rectangular cross section is created.” (emphasis added). Thus, Broch describes that the walls 8, 9 form a semicircular shaped chamber. Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that the elements 8,9 as shown in Figures 1-2 of Broch are “semicircle shaped” bearings because “semicircle shaped” requires an element that is generally in the shape of a semicircle, which is clearly shown by the elements 8, 9 shown in Figure 2 of Broch. Thus, even if the elements 8, 9, do extend slightly passed 180° around the roller 17 as argued by applicant, these elements are still “semicircle shaped bearings” as broadly recited.
In view of the above reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
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 LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 pm.
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 D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights