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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6, 7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levi Acobas et al. (US 2010/0199869 A1) as evidenced by Lubrizol.
Claim 1: Levi Acobas teaches a coating 10 for a printing machine blanket cylinder (abstract) having a multilayer structure comprising a printing blanket 12 and an elastomer layer 14 having a first face connected to the printing blanket 12 and a second face adhering to the cylinder (abstract), wherein the printing blanket 12 comprises at least one external layer 20 made of nitrile/butyl rubber [0027] and three fabrics 16, 17, and 18 [0027]. The coating 10 meets the claimed coating, the printing blanket 12 meets the claimed blanket layer, the elastomer layer 14 meets the claimed elastomeric layer, the external layer 20 meets the claimed printing sublayer and the three fabrics 16, 17, and 18 meet the claimed at least one fabric sublayer. Levi Acobas teaches the elastomer layer 14 can be made of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) Estane 54660 [0018]. Evidence shows that Estane 54660 has a tensile stress, at 100% of elongation comprised 2 MPa (page 1 of Lubrizol).
Claim 2: Levi Acobas teaches the elastomer layer 14 can be made of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) Estane 54660 [0018]. Evidence shows that Estane 54660 has a tensile stress, at 100% of elongation comprised 2 MPa (page 1 of Lubrizol).
Claim 6: Levi Acobas teaches the elastomer layer 14 can be made of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) [0018].
Claim 7: Levi Acobas teaches the elastomer layer 14 can be made of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) Estane 54660 [0018]. Evidence shows that Estane 54660 is polyester based TPU (page 1 of Lubrizol).
Claim 10: Levi Acobas teaches the elastomer layer 14 has a thickness between 0.05 and 1.50 mm, with a tolerance of +/−0.01 mm ([0017] and [0022]).
Claim 11: Levi Acobas teaches the elastomer layer has self-levelling capacities and such thickness that combined with the thickness of the printing blanket layer it allows to maintain the desired overall thickness for the multilayer structure (abstract).
Claim 12: Levi Acobas teaches the second face of the elastomer layer 14 having a direct adhesion capacity and without requiring the interposition of additional adhesive products with the cylinder capable of adhering both in static and dynamic conditions at least sufficient to guarantee the maintenance of a perfect adhesion against the cylinder on one side and an easy removal from the same on the other (abstract).
Claim 13: Levi Acobas teaches the present invention provides for a printing machine blanket cylinder, characterised in that it comprises a coating having a multilayer structure comprising a printing blanket layer of the type suitable for the type of printing machine and an underlying elastomer layer having such physical/chemical characteristics that the body of said elastomer layer is provided with self-levelling characteristics and such thickness that combined with the thickness of the printing blanket layer it allows to maintain the desired overall thickness of said multilayer structure [0009].
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi Acobas et al. (US 2010/0199869 A1) and Lubrizol as applied to claim 1 above.
Levi Acobas teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claims 3 and 4: With respect to the hardness value of the elastomer layer 14, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select an elastomer material having the claimed hardness value, and the motivation would be to control the flexibility and softness of the elastomer layer. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi Acobas et al. (US 2010/0199869 A1) and Lubrizol as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raimondi et al. (US 2019/0144810 A1).
Levi Acobas teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 5: Levi Acobas does not teach silicone as a suitable material for the elastomer layer 14. However, Raimondi teaches an elastomeric layer made of an elastomer of silicone type or a thermoplastic polyurethane [0047]. Raimondi shows that silicone is an equivalent elastomeric material known in the elastomeric material art. Therefore, because silicone and thermoplastic polyurethane were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the thermoplastic polyurethane for silicone.
Neither Levi Acobas nor Raimondi teach the presence of plasticizers in the elastomer layer.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi Acobas et al. (US 2010/0199869 A1) and Lubrizol as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchiyama et al. (US 5,463,410).
Levi Acobas teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 8: Levi Acobas does not teach the elastomer layer 14 further comprises additives. However, Uchiyama teaches a transfer roller 5 may have a two-layer structure formed by coating a roller with an elastomer such as a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, in which an electroconductive filler or a semiconductive filler is mixed to select a suitable resistance of the elastomer and to set the volume resistivity of the elastomer layer to a range of 1011 to 1015 Ωcm (col. 10, line 64 thru col. 11, line 15). The fillers meet the claimed additives. Levi Acobas and Uchiyama are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the printing roller art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fillers of Uchiyama with the invention of Levi Acobas, and the motivation for combining would be, as Uchiyama suggested, to control the resistivity of the elastomer layer (col. 11, lines 13-15).
Claim 9: With respect to the amount of the thermoplastic elastomer of the elastomer layer 14, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the content of the thermoplastic elastomer, and the motivation would be to control the durability and elasticity of the elastomer layer. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted; however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
February 10, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785