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 replacement sheets of drawings were received on August 8, 2025. These drawings are approved by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (GB 2 190 330 A) in view of Bernard et al. (WO 2005/108262 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Bowman et al. teaches a printing press (Fig. 1) for printing a printing material web 2, the printing press comprising:
at least one first printing unit (i.e., one of 40-42, 100-103, 111-114) for at least one-sided printing of the printing material web 2 with a first print image with a first print image length (i.e., repeat length);
at least one second printing unit (i.e., another of 40-42, 100-103, 111-114) for at least one-sided printing of the printing material web 2 with a second print image with a second print image length (i.e., repeat length) deviating from the first print image length; and
a cross-cutting means 180 (Fig. 15), which is formed for separating the printing material web into sheets with a sheet length, wherein the sheet length is “adjustably cuttable” to only one of the first print image length, the second print image length, and a quotient of the first print image length or of the second print image length as numerator and an integer of greater than zero as divisor (note Bowman et al. teaches the knife unit 180 can be powered by the drive shaft common with the printing station in page 10, lines 124-129 and therefore teaches the sheets are cut to sizes corresponding to the size of the print image length); and
a folding device 181 (see page 11, lines 1-4) arranged downstream of the cross-cutting means 180, the folding device being capable of being adjustably settable to fold the sheets according to only one of the respective sheet lengths, wherein each of the first printing unit and the second printing unit is configured such that the printing material web 2 can be guided in a print-free manner (see page 3, lines 1-49) through either of the respective first and second printing units.
Particular attention is invited to Figures 1, 4-5, 7-12, and 15. In particular, it is noted that page 7, lines 102-127, page 8, lines 47-62, and page 10, lines 17-27 teach the use of different size/diameter cylinders such that the print length can be varied which is also clearly illustrated by the embodiments of Figures 7-8. Additionally note that page 3, lines 1-49, page 8, lines 79-97, and page 9, lines 12-128 describe the ability of the different print/blanket cylinders to be moved between an operative printing position with the cylinders in contact with the web and an off contact position in which printing does not occur. Additionally note that Bowman et al. teach the provision of a cross-cutting means 180 for cutting the web into sheets with a sheet length and then passed to a downstream folder, as described in page 10, line 114-page 11, line 6. Note that it is inherent that the printer of Bowman et al. is operable to cut and fold the sheets in association with the particular print image length of the printed image that has been printed by the particular printing unit selected for printing.
With respect to claim 4, Bowman et al. teaches wherein the first printing unit and/or the second printing unit are configured as offset printing units or as flexo printing units or as letterpress printing units or as gravure printing units, as set forth in page 2, lines 112-130.
With respect to claim 6, Bowman et al. teaches wherein the folding device is configured for collecting and/or cross-folding and/or longitudinal folding of the sheets, as set forth in page 11, lines 1-20 and page 10, lines 46-113 and shown in Figures 13-16.
With respect to claim 8, Bowman et al. teaches wherein the folding device comprises a cylinder group of folding cylinders 161, 162, 171, 172, 175, 178, 193, as shown in Figures 13-16 and described in page 10, lines 46-113 and page 11, lines 1-21.
With respect to claim 9, Bowman et al. teaches a method for producing folded sheets with at least a first sheet length or a second sheet length, the method comprising the steps of: printing a printing material web 2 with at least one first printing unit (i.e., one of 40-42, 100-103, 111-114) with a first print image length or with at least one second printing unit (i.e., another of 40-42, 100-103, 111-114) with a second print image length, separating the printed material web with a cross-cutting means 180 into separated sheets with a sheet length, wherein the sheet length is equal to only one of the first print image length, the second print image length, and a length equal to a quotient of the first print image length or of the second print image length as numerator and with a whole integer greater than zero as divisor as a function of the performed first print image length or of the second print image length, folding the separated sheets with a folding device arranged downstream from the cross-cutting means, wherein the folding device is set according to only one of the respective sheet lengths (see, for example, page 10, lines 46-129 and claim 27 which teaches that the folding can occur in timed dependence of the arrival of the sheet or based on a set position of a stop of the ramp in the folding structure). Note also the above comments with respect to claim 1 and the specific teachings in Bowman et al.
With respect to claim 11, Bowman et al. teaches wherein the printing material web 2 is guided in a contact-free manner through the at least one second printing unit or around the at least one second printing unit such that said printing material web is printed by means of the at least one first printing unit. In particular, note page 3, lines 1-49 and page 9, lines 12-128 of Bowman et al., which describe the ability of the different print/blanket cylinders to be moved between an operative printing position with the cylinders in contact with the web and an off contact position in which printing does not occur.
With respect to claim 12, Bowman et al. teaches wherein the printing material web is guided in a contact-free manner through the at least one first printing unit or around the at least one first printing unit such that said printing material web is printed by means of the second printing unit. In particular, note page 3, lines 1-49 and page 9, lines 12-128 of Bowman et al., which describe the ability of the different print/blanket cylinders to be moved between an operative printing position with the cylinders in contact with the web and an off contact position in which printing does not occur.
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (GB 2 190 330 A) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 above, and further in view of Faltin (US 3,889,939).
With respect to claim 7, Bowman et al. teaches a printing press as recited but is silent with respect to the details of the cross-cutting means and whether it includes a cutting cylinder pair configured for producing different sheet lengths. However, Faltin teaches it is well known in the art to have a cutting unit for web printing pressing including a cross-cutting means comprising a cutting cylinder pair configured for producing different sheet lengths. See, in particular, Figures 1 and 5 and column 2, lines 26-59, column 5, line 28-column 6, line 21, and column 9, line 60-column 10, line 59. 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 cross-cutting means of Bowman et al. to be configured as a cutting cylinder pair to produce the different sheet lengths as this would simply require the obvious substitution of one known cross-cutting configuration for another, to allow for better controlled cross cutting at a variety of different sheet lengths as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections.
With respect to the claims, applicant argues that Bowman et al. does not teach all of the features of claims 1 or 9 as amended because Bowman et al. teaches an open-ended unspecified possibility of fold configurations after cutting by stating “it is possible to provide for any number of folds.” The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because the claim language is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and fails to recite any further structure necessary to perform that function.
In response to applicant's argument that Bowman et al. does not teach a folding device being “adjustably settable” to fold the sheets according to only one of the respective sheet lengths, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the structure of Bowman et al. is capable of performing cutting and folding based upon the size of the printed image length of the printed image that has been printed by the selected printing unit and therefore can be considered to be “adjustably settable” to fold sheets according to the sheet length associated with the printed image length. Note, for example, page 8, lines 79-97 discusses the operation of the printing machine and that the machine may print using only one print cylinder in contact with the web. Thus, the cutter/folder would inherently be “settable” to cut/fold in accordance with the print image length of the selected cylinder doing the printing, as is broadly recited in the claims. The claim language fails to recite any particular structure or method steps that patentably distinguish from the printing press and method as taught by Bowman et al.
In view of the above reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kepert (EP 0 257 390 A1) teach that a variable format folder located downstream of a cross-cutting device is well known in the art.
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 EVANISKO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 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 Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853