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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “27b” has been used to designate both the left and right Second Cylinder Bearing in Fig. 1. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show Shaft 24 and Load Wz as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Block Spacer and Centering Plug both share the same reference numeral of 52
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a flexure hinges”, and should instead read “a flexure hinge”.
Claim 11 recites “in the centre of”, and should instead read “in the center of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the circumference" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edouard Borel (US 6350061 B1 – hereinafter Borel) in view of Evan Linnestad (WO 2018162511 A1 – hereinafter Linnestad).
Regarding claim 1, Borel teaches a rotary die system (Fig. 1), comprising: first and second cylinders (Fig. 1, Cylinders 1 and 2); a base structure configured to support the first and second cylinders in a rotatable manner about substantially parallel nominal axes (Fig. 1, axes demonstrated with crosshairs over the ends of Cylinders 1 and 2) that jointly span a plane (Fig. 1, the axes are parallel and therefore lie on a shared plane), the cylinders defining two respective processing surfaces that are interspaced by a non-zero gap directed along an inter-axis direction along the plane (Fig. 1, outer surfaces of Cylinders 1 and 2 are intended to interact with cardboard passing between them, and a gap between the two which allows cardboard to pass through is set with the use of shims – Col. 3, lines 1-5); two first bearing blocks (Fig. 1, the two pairs of Fixing Members 14 at each end of Cylinder 1) configured to enclose the first cylinder from opposite axial sides along the respective axis, and configured to support the combined weight of at least the first cylinder and the first bearing blocks; wherein each of the first bearing blocks is composed of: an inner block member (Fig. 2, Inner Part 14a) configured for accommodating a bearing (Fig. 1, Bearing 3) holding a rotatable shaft of the first cylinder; an outer block member (Fig. 1, Outer Part 14b) with a cut-out accommodating the inner block member; a tensioning element (Fig. 1, Screw 10) for creating a biasing force on the inner block member relative to the outer block member (Col. 3, lines 6-8;Fig 1, Screw 10 exerts a pressure on Bearing 3, and therefore a pressure on Outer Part 14b relative to Inner Part 14a, which is fixedly attached to Upright 6), and a plurality of flexure hinges (Fig. 2, hinges comprised of Strip 18, Lug 20, and Lug 21 and hinges comprised of Strip 19, Lug 22, and Lug 23. These groups are considered to be hinges as they allow for translation of 14a relative to 14b in the vertical direction via pivoting at each end of strip 18 or 19– Col. 4, lines 25-29) that mechanically interconnect the inner and outer block members, so as to allow the inner block member to translate relative to the outer block member along the inter-axis direction, but to prevent relative motion of the inner block member along transverse directions, while the rotary die system is operational and the cylinders are rotating (Col. 3, lies 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-3); and wherein either the inner block member, the outer block member, and the flexure hinges in each respective first bearing block are jointly formed from a monolithic/unitary body of continuous solid material (Fig. 2).
Borel does not teach the cylinders defining two respective contacting surfaces along which the cylinders touch.
However, Linnestad teaches two cylinders (Fig. 1, Rollers 2) defining two respective contacting surfaces along which the cylinders touch (Fig. 1, outer surfaces of Annular Bearers 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the device of Borel to include the features of claim 1 above as taught by Linnestad. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for the definition of a recess between the two bearing rings of a cylinder in which a cutter can be located (Linnestad; Page 3, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 2, Borel further teaches the rotary die system according to claim 1, wherein a flexure hinge comprises a pair of parallel flexure blades (Fig. 2, Strip 18 and Lug 20), the flexure blades are extending perpendicular to the inter-axis direction. Borel does not teach that a width of the flexure blades is substantially equal to a thickness of the first respective bearing block, however it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). The rotary die system as of Borel would not function different with the claimed relative dimensions, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Borel to include that a width of the flexure blades is substantially equal to a thickness of the first respective bearing block.
Regarding claim 3, Borel further teaches the rotary die system according to claim 1, wherein the flexure hinges mounted in fixed position in between, consist of a spring steel (Col. 3, lines 24-29).
Regarding claim 4, Borel further teaches the rotary die system according to claim 1, further comprising: two second bearing blocks (Fig. 1, Uprights 6 and 7 at each end of Cylinder 2) configured to enclose the second cylinder from opposite axial sides along the respective axis and configured to support the second cylinder, a predefined initial distance between the axes of the first and second cylinders before the rotary die system is energized (Fig. 1, outer surfaces of Cylinders 1 and 2 are intended to interact with cardboard passing between them, and a gap between the two which allows cardboard to pass through is set with the use of shims, thereby also defining a distance between the axes of the first and second cylinders - Col. 3, lines 1-5); and wherein the inner and outer block members and flexure hinges cooperate to allow translations of the inner block member along the inter-axis direction in order to accommodate differential either positive or negative thermal expansion of the bearing blocks relative to the bearer rings along the inter-axis-direction (Col. 3, lies 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-3 - the flexure hinges allow for movement in the vertical direction, and examiner interprets that accommodating via translation in the vertical direction to accommodate for thermal expansion is intended use, and the structure of the flexure hinges would allow for this activity).
Regarding claim 5, Borel further teaches the rotary die system according to claim 1,wherein each respective first bearing block defines intra-block clearances (Fig. 2, Opening 15 and Slots 16 and 17) in-between peripheral surfaces of the inner block member, the outer block member, and the flexure hinges respectively.
Regarding claim 7, Borel further teaches the rotary die system according to claim 1, wherein the flexure hinges provide a local reduced stiffness in the inter-axis direction relative to the stiffness in the plane defined by the transverse directions (Col. 3, lies 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-3 - movement is allowed in the inter-axis direction and not in the transverse directions, and therefore there is a local reduced stiffness).
Regarding claim 8, Borel further teaches the rotary die system according to claim 1, wherein the flexure hinges each consist of a stack of flexure plates (Fig. 2, Strip 18, Lug 20, and Lug 21) integral with the metal body providing interconnections between the inner and outer block members.
Regarding claim 9, Borel further teaches a bearing block for a rotary die system, consisting of a metal body (Fig. 2, the two pairs of Fixing Members 14 at each end of Cylinder 1) comprising an inner block member (Fig. 2, Inner Part 14a) and an outer block member (Fig. 1, Outer Part 14b) separated by a contour cut throughout the metal body, the inner and the outer block member being interconnected by flexure hinges (Fig. 2, hinges comprised of Strip 18, Lug 20, and Lug 21 and hinges comprised of Strip 19, Lug 22, and Lug 23) at least three locations where the contour cut is interrupted (Fig. 1, there is a hinge in all four corners of the bearing block).
Regarding claim 10, Borel further teaches the bearing block according to claim 9, wherein the flexure hinges each consist of a stack comprising at least a pair of flexure blades (Strip 18, Lug 20) integral with the metal body, the pair of blades providing interconnections between the inner and outer block members.
Regarding claim 11, Borel further teaches a method for manufacturing a bearing block for a rotary die system comprising: providing a rectangular metal body (Fig. 2, Fixing Members 14); creating a central opening in the center of the metal body (Fig. 1, gap between the left and right Fixing Member 14), creating a contour cut (Fig. 2, Openings 15) substantially around the central opening to substantially divide the body into an inner block (Fig. 2, Inner Part 14a) member and an outer block member (Fig. 2, Outer Part 14b); providing flexure hinges as interruptions along the contour cut at at least three locations around the opening to interconnect the inner and outer block members (Fig. 1, hinges in the four corners of the bearing block, better detailed in Fig. 2, hinges comprised of Strip 18, Lug 20, and Lug 21 and hinges comprised of Strip 19, Lug 22, and Lug 23).
Regarding claim 12, Borel further teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the inner block member (Fig. 2, Outer Part 14b) is enveloped at a circumference thereof by the outer block member (Fig. 2, Outer Part 14b).
Regarding claim 13, Borel further teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the outer block member is U-shaped (Fig. 2, Outer Part 14b), an upright portion of the inner block member (Fig. 1, leftmost Inner Part 14a) is positioned in between upright portions of the outer block member (Fig. 1, vertical portions of left and right Outer Parts 14b), and a horizontal top part of the inner block member (Fig. 1, left and right Arm 26) is connected to each of the uprights of the outer block member (Fig. 1, vertical portions of left and right Outer Parts 14b).
Regarding claim 14, Borel further teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the method provides that the flexure hinges each consist of a stack of at least a pair flexure blades (Fig. 2, Strip 18, Lug 20, and Lug 21) that are integral with the metal body providing interconnections between the inner and outer block members.
Regarding claim 15, Borel further teaches a bearing block for the rotary die system according to claim 1, wherein the bearing block consists of a metal body comprising an inner block member (Fig. 1, Inner Part 14a) and an outer block member (Fig. 2, Outer Part 14b) separated by a contour cut throughout the metal body, the inner and the outer block member being interconnected by flexure hinges at at least three locations where the contour cut is interrupted (Fig. 1, hinges in the four corners of the bearing block, better detailed in Fig. 2, hinges comprised of Strip 18, Lug 20, and Lug 21 and hinges comprised of Strip 19, Lug 22, and Lug 23).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edouard Borel (US 6350061 B1 – hereinafter Borel) in view of Evan Linnestad (WO 2018162511 A1 – hereinafter Linnestad) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Keratherm Thermal Management Solutions (See attached PDF – hereinafter Keratherm).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Borel and Linnestad does not teach the rotary die system according to claim 5, wherein the flexure hinge accommodates a first filler material in cut-outs of the flexure hinge having a thermal conductivity of at least a similar order of magnitude as a thermal conductivity of the continuous material forming the first bearing block.
However, Keratherm teaches the use of a thermal grease (Page 26, KP12) having a thermal conductivity (Page 26, Table shown – 10 W/mK) in the same order of magnitude of steel, from which the first bearing block of Borel is formed. It is well known to apply thermal grease in gaps for improved heat transfer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the device of Borel and Linnestad to include the limitations of claim 6 as taught by Keratherm. Doing so is beneficial as the thermal grease is suitable for fast and effective heat dissipation (Keratherm; Page 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights