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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 04/30/2024 and 05/09/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group l, an apparatus for forming a film having a uniform thickness from a powder, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-15 have been canceled.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giorgini (US 4,363,862) in view of Buchleither et al. (EP2017078A2) and Costin et al. (US 6,651,557) (All of record).
With respect to claim 1, Giorgini teaches an apparatus (“an apparatus 2 for pressure-fixing imaging powder in imaged areas”, co 3 li 62-63, Fig. 1) for forming a film (“a receptor 13 that has unfixed image areas 14 and fixed image areas 15 thereon”, co 4 Ii 15-16) having a uniform thickness from a powder (co 3 Ii 61-63, co 4 Ii 58-68), the apparatus comprising:
a first nip roller (“a second cylindrical pressure roll 4”, co 3 li 64-65) and a second nip roller (“a first cylindrical pressure roll 3”, co 3 li 63-64), each of the first nip roller (4) and second nip roller (3) being configured to compress the powder (co 3 Ii 61-63, co 4 Ii 58-68) as it passes between the first nip roller (4) and the second nip roller (3) and thereby form the film (“fixed image areas 15” on “the receptor 13”).
Giorgini does not specifically teach that in the absence of a force counteracting the pressure of the passage of the powder between the first nip roller and the second nip roller, the first nip roller is deflected to a greater degree than the second nip roller; wherein the first nip roller and the second nip roller are each associated with one or more eccentric bearings that rotate to apply force vectors to the first nip roller and the second nip roller.
In the same field of endeavor, printing press roller, Buchleither, teaches a printing press roller (Pa [0026], Figs. 1a-9b) for forming a film (“dampening solution film”, Pa [0035]) having a uniform thickness (“a dampening solution layer of uniform thickness over its entire effective length is transferred from roller 3 to the further roller 4.”, Pa [0038]), the apparatus comprising: a first nip roller (3, Fig. 1a) and a second nip roller (4, Fig. 1a), each of the first nip roller (3) and second nip roller (4) being configured to compress a material (“dampening solution”, Pa [0035]) as it passes between the first nip roller (3) and the second nip roller (4) and thereby form the film (“dampening solution film”, Pa [0035]), whereby in the absence of a force (absence of the force provide by the eccentric bearing 12, 17, Fig. 1a) counteracting the pressure of the passage of the material between the first nip roller (3) and the second nip roller (4), the first nip roller (3) is deflected (“its axial deflection”, Pa [0040]) to a greater degree than the second nip roller (4) (Fig. 1a); wherein the first nip roller (3) is associated with one or more eccentric bearings (“the middle rotary bearing 12” and “the bearing seat 17”, Pa [0034]) that rotate to apply force vectors to the first nip roller (3) and the second nip roller (4).
Buchleither does not specifically teach that the first nip roller and the second nip roller are each associated with one or more eccentric bearings that rotate to apply force vectors to the first nip roller and the second nip roller.
In the same field of endeavor, a printing unit, Costin teaches a printing unit (Fig. 1) wherein a first nip roller (Left blanket cylinder 2, Fig. 1) and a second nip roller (Right blanket cylinder 2, Fig. 1) (co 2 li 64) are each associated with one or more eccentric bearings (“eccentric bearing sleeves 3, 4”, co 3 li 42-43, Fig. 1) that rotate to apply force vectors to the first nip roller (Left 2, Fig. 1) and the second nip roller (Right 2, Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the powder of Giorgini for the material of Buchleither as a routine substitution of a known equivalent type of marking material for performing the same function. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the eccentric bearings of Costin to the second nip roller of Buchleither to further increase the range of the sizes of the gap between the first and second nip roller, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
With respect to claim 2, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not specifically teach that the apparatus is configured so that a first contact area between the film and the first nip roller is smaller than a second contact area between the film and the second nip roller. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the sizes of the first and second nip roller. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sizes of the first and second nip roller to modify the contact the sizes of the film that the apparatus is able to handle, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
With respect to claim 3, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not specifically teach that the eccentric bearings are configured to apply a greater magnitude of force from the force vectors to the second nip roller than to the first nip roller. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the sizes and forces of the first and second nip roller and the eccentric bearings. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sizes and forces of the first and second nip roller and the eccentric bearings to modify the contact the sizes of the film that the apparatus is able to handle, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
With respect to claim 4, Costin as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above further teaches that the eccentric bearings (“3”, “4”) are configured to apply a different vector of force (the different force vector of rollers Left 2 and Right 2 when eccentric bearings 3, 4 are rotated 180 degrees) to each side of the same nip roller (“2”) (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 6, Costin as applied in the combination regarding claim 1 above teaches that the eccentric bearings (“3”, “4”) are configured to each independently apply a force (the different force vector of rollers Left 2 and Right 2 when eccentric bearings 3, 4 are rotated 180 degrees) to each side of the same nip roller (“2”), but does not specifically teach that the first nip roller and the second nip roller are configured to each independently apply a force having a magnitude of about 1 kN to about 75 kN, where such force is attributable only to the action of the eccentric bearings and is separate from any additional force applied by other parts of the apparatus on the first nip roller and the second nip roller. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the amount of force is applied by the first and second nip roller. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the amount of force is applied by the first and second nip roller to create a more uniform thickness film, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
With respect to claim 7, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not specifically teach that the apparatus is capable of imparting a uniform thickness to the film such that the film has a thickness variation across its width of no more than about 10 μm. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the force and thickness of the film. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the force and thickness of the film to create a more uniform thickness film and film with a specific thickness, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giorgini (US 4,363,862) in view of Buchleither et al. (EP2017078A2) and Costin et al. (US 6,651,557) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minbe et al. (US 8,548,345) (All of record).
With respect to claim 5, the combination as applied to claim 1 above does not specifically teach a position sensor configured to determine the position of at least one of the eccentric bearings.
In the same field of endeavor, an image forming apparatus, Minbe teaches that an optical sensor 60 is fixed to a motor bracket supporting the cam driving motor 58 (co 11 li 52-53), and the light-receiving element of the optical sensor 60 receives light from the light-emitting element and transmits a light-receiving signal to the unshown controller, the controller learns the rotation angular positions of the cam parts of the eccentric cams (50, 51) fixed to the penetrating shaft member 24 a, based on the timing when the light-receiving signal is no longer received from the light-receiving element or the amount of drive of the cam driving motor 58 obtained from this timing (co 11 li 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination with the teachings of Minbe and provide the optical sensor in order to determine the position of at least one of the eccentric bearings as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-7 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
With respect to claim 1, the claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717 teaches the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 2, the claim 2 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717 teaches the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 3, the claim 3 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717 teaches the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 4, the claim 4 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717 teaches the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 5, the claim 5 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717 teaches the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 6, the claim 6 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717 teaches the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 7, the claim 7 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,036,717 teaches the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights