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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. Applicant's submittal of claims 1-18 in the “Claims” filed on 06/06/2024 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-18 pending for prosecution.
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.
2. Claims 2 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the instant claim recites limitations in view of the parent device claim 1, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “wherein the transport roller contacts the side of the recording medium on which the dried print image is located” (Claim 2; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “wherein the transport roller contacts the side of the recording medium on which the dried print image is located” (Claim 2) lacks proper antecedent basis. There is not mention of “a dried print image” in either of claim 2 or claim 1. Thus, it is not clear whether two different bases or layers are being claimed in claim 18. Therefore, the limitation of “wherein the transport roller contacts the side of the recording medium on which the dried print image is located” (Claim 2) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “a method for producing a protective layer on a portion of a surface of a base body of a transport roller for transporting the recording medium, the transport roller being arranged downstream of a drying unit for drying an inkjet print image printed onto the recording medium, comprising: and a protective layer that comprises at least one ruthenium layer is generated on the portion of the surface of the base body of the transport roller” (Claim 4; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “a method for producing a protective layer on a portion of a surface of a base body of a transport roller for transporting the recording medium, the transport roller being arranged downstream of a drying unit for drying an inkjet print image printed onto the recording medium, comprising: and a protective layer that comprises at least one ruthenium layer is generated on the portion of the surface of the base body of the transport roller” (Claim 4) is ambiguous and unclear whether the recitation of “a protective layer” in line 6 of claim 4 refers to the recitation of “a protective layer” in line 1 of claim 4, or if the recitation of “a protective layer” in line 6 of claim 4 refers to a second protective layer. Therefore, the limitation of “a method for producing a protective layer on a portion of a surface of a base body of a transport roller for transporting the recording medium, the transport roller being arranged downstream of a drying unit for drying an inkjet print image printed onto the recording medium, comprising: and a protective layer that comprises at least one ruthenium layer is generated on the portion of the surface of the base body of the transport roller” (Claim 4) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claims 5-18, those are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 4.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 1-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Swift et al (US 4146659 A; hereinafter Swift), in view of Cardarelli (US 20100261034 A1; hereinafter Cardarelli).
Regarding claim 1, Swift teaches a transport roller for transporting a recording medium (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [Abstract+], and as cited below), comprising:
the transport roller (2; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) comprising:
a base body (4; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20),
a protective layer (Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) formed, on at least a portion of a surface shell of the base body (4),
wherein the protective layer (Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) comprises at least one ruthenium layer,
wherein the protective layer (Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) comprises (see below for “at least one zincate layer that is arranged between”) the ruthenium layer (Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) and the base body (4).
As noted above, Swift does not expressly disclose “wherein the protective layer comprises at least one zincate layer that is arranged between the ruthenium layer and the base body”.
However, in the analogous art, Cardarelli teaches a lightweight, high strength, corrosion resistant metallic composite materials ([Abstract, 0034]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0002+]) a core material (40; Fig. 2; [0041]), an intermediate layer (50) and an outer protective layer (60), where intermediate layer (50; [0057]) comprises of ruthenium and an outer protective layer (60; [0090]) comprises of zinc.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the protective material of Swift with the zinc material of the protective layer of Cardarelli, and thereby, modified Swift’s (by Cardarelli) device will have wherein the protective layer (Swift Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) comprises at least one zincate layer (Cardarelli [0090]; zinc) that is arranged between the ruthenium layer (Swift Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) and the base body (Swift 4).
.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Swift in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a lightweight, high strength, corrosion resistant metallic composite materials, where the composite materials typically comprise a high strength-to-weight ratio, low density core material; and a refractory, corrosion resistant protective layer comprising of zinc (Cardarelli [0031, 0041, 0090]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein the transport roller (Swift 2; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) contacts the side of the recording medium (12; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) on which the dried print image (see section 2, above; 112(b) rejection) is located.
Regarding claim 3, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein the protective layer (Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) directly contacts the recording medium (12; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) .
Regarding claim 4, Swift teaches a method for producing a protective layer (Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) on a portion of a surface of a base body (4; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) of a transport roller (2; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) for transporting the recording medium (12; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20), the transport roller (2; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) being arranged downstream of a drying unit for drying an inkjet print image printed onto the recording medium (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [Abstract+], and as cited below), comprising:
and a protective layer (Figs. 1-2; C7 L22-43 in view of C12 L18-20; ruthenium) that comprises at least one ruthenium layer is generated on the portion of the surface of the base body (4; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) of the transport roller (2; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20), the method comprising:
But, Swift does not expressly disclosed “blasting the base body with alumina before an application of the ruthenium layer or another layer,and, before the application of the ruthenium layer or another layer, and after the blasting with alumina, the base body is treated via a chemical deposition in a zincate etchant bath, or is treated via a galvanic method, to generate a zincate etchant layer”.
However, in the analogous art, Cardarelli teaches a lightweight, high strength, corrosion resistant metallic composite materials ([Abstract, 0034]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0002+]) a core material (40; Fig. 2; [0041]), an intermediate layer (50) and an outer protective layer (60), where intermediate layer (50; [0057]) comprises of ruthenium and an outer protective layer (60; [0090]) comprises of zinc, where A rod of shape memory nickel-titanium alloy (NiTiNOL; 55Ni-45Ti) was first degreased using trichloroethylene. The clean rod was then electropolished in a solution of sulfuric acid in methanol (e.g. 200 g/L H.sub.2SO.sub.4). The anode was comprised of the rod of shape memory alloy while the cathode was comprised of a platinum plate. The electropolishing was performed galvanostatically over a period of 30 seconds, until the cell voltage reached 60 V, at 5.degree. C. with an anodic current density of 2 kA/m.sup.2. The etched rod was then thoroughly washed with methanol and kept therein until deposition of the intermediate layer ([0086]), and rectangular plate of magnesium metal was first degreased using acetone, air dried and then gently sandblasted with a fine corundum sand (90.mu.m) under a pressure of 5 MPa using a sandblasting unit (model Solo basic) manufactured by Renfert GmbH. The sandblasted plate was immersed in an ultrasound bath for removal of any imbedded abrasive sand particles. The magnesium plate was then immersed in an alkaline zincate bath at room temperature comprising 500 g/L sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and 100 g/L zinc oxide (ZnO). Any oxide film at the surface of the magnesium plate was readily dissolved (exposing the magnesium metal) and was immediately replaced by a zinc layer providing a coherent layer ready for the electroplating the intermediate layer or intermediate coating layer ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Cardarelli steps to produce a lightweight, high strength, corrosion resistant metallic composite materials, and thereby, modified Swift’s (by Cardarelli) method will have
blasting the base body (4; Figs. 1-2; C7 8-20) with alumina before an application of the ruthenium layer or another layer, and, before the application of the ruthenium layer or another layer (Cardarelli [0090]), and
after the blasting with alumina, the base body is treated via a chemical deposition in a zincate etchant bath, or is treated via a galvanic method, to generate a zincate etchant layer (Cardarelli [0090, 0086])
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Swift in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a lightweight, high strength, corrosion resistant metallic composite materials, where the composite materials typically comprise a high strength-to-weight ratio, low density core material; and a refractory, corrosion resistant protective layer comprising of zinc that comprise of using corundum and a zincate bath (Cardarelli [0031, 0041, 0086, 0090]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 4.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein the temperature of zincate etchant bath has a value of 10C to 25C, and/or the treatment duration in the bath is within a range of from 60s to 120s (Cardarelli see [0090]; room temperature)
Regarding claim 6, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 4.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein, after generation of the zincate etchant layer , the base body is treated via a chemical deposition in a nickel sulfamate bath, or is treated via a galvanic method, to generate a nickel layer (Cardarelli see [0102])
Regarding claim 7, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 6.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein the temperature of the nickel sulfamate bath has a value (see below for “in a range of from 30C to 50C, and/or the PH value is within a range from 3 to 4”) (Cardarelli see [0098, 0100, 0102])
As noted above, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) does not expressly disclose “wherein the temperature of the nickel sulfamate bath has a value in a range of from 30C to 50C, and/or the PH value is within a range from 3 to 4”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the temperature of the nickel sulfamate bath has a value in a range of from 30C to 50C, and/or the PH value is within a range from 3 to 4” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without “wherein the temperature of the nickel sulfamate bath has a value in a range of from 30C to 50C, and/or the PH value is within a range from 3 to 4”). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed “wherein the temperature of the nickel sulfamate bath has a value in a range of from 30C to 50C, and/or the PH value is within a range from 3 to 4” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It has been held that is not inventive to discover “wherein the temperature of the nickel sulfamate bath has a value in a range of from 30C to 50C, and/or the PH value is within a range from 3 to 4” by routine experimentation (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Because, it is noted that it has been held that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." See MPEP § 2112.01.II. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 6.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein the nickel layer is generated in a galvanic bath, a maximum amperage in a range of from 0.3 A/dm2 to 2.5 A/dm2 of a cathode surface is generated in the galvanic bath, and wherein the base body forms a cathode (Cardarelli see [0106])
Regarding claim 17, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 4.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein the alumina (Cardarelli [0090, 0086]) (see below for “has a grain size of 200 um to 240 um”)
As noted above, Miccoli does not expressly disclose “wherein the alumina has a grain size of 200 um to 240 um”.
However, it has been held that “wherein the alumina has a grain size of 200 um to 240 um” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the alumina has a grain size of 200 um to 240 um is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed wherein the alumina has a grain size of 200 um to 240 um is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the alumina has a grain size of 200 um to 240 um as claimed in device because having the wherein the alumina has a grain size of 200 um to 240 um can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, modified Swift (by Cardarelli) teaches all of the features of claim 4.
Modified Swift (by Cardarelli) further teaches wherein the alumina (Cardarelli [0090, 0086]) (see below for “is special fused alumina”)
As noted above, Miccoli does not expressly disclose “wherein the alumina is special fused alumina”.
However, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “wherein the alumina is special fused alumina” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen compositions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen compositions are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the alumina is special fused alumina” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without “wherein the alumina is special fused alumina”). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed “wherein the alumina is special fused alumina” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It has been held that is not inventive to discover “wherein the alumina is special fused alumina” by routine experimentation (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Because, it is noted that it has been held that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." See MPEP § 2112.01.II. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 9 (and claims dependent upon claim 9, namely claim 10-16) is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A search of the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations “wherein, after generation of the nickel layer, the base body is treated via a chemical deposition in a bath with phosphatic nickel, or is treated via a galvanic method, to generate a phosphatic nickel layer” of claim 9 (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights