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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 5-29-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1-5 were amended. Claims 1-5 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Here, in Claim 1, “coupling means” was not interpreted under 35 USC 112F, as the generic place holder “means” was modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, such that the third prog of the test, above, is not met. Namely, a plurality of holding assemblies each having a retractable insert configured to protrude from the surface of the cylindrical body.
Here, in Claim 1, “valve means’ to control the fluid was not interpreted under 35 USC 112F, as the term “valve” provides sufficient structure for performing the claimed function, such that the third prong of the test, above, is not met.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,171,885 to Obiol in view of US 6,716,017 to Papadopoulos, US 3,670,646 to Welsh and US 2003/0066405 to Harrison.
In re Claim 1, Obiol teaches a die-holding cylinder (see assembly in Fig. 1) for a laminate die-cutting machine (see Fig. 2), comprising
a cylindrical body (see Figs. 1-2, #2) provided for rotation about a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical body; and
a plurality of holding assemblies coupled to the cylindrical body (see Figs. 1-8, Assembly, #3-7), each holding assembly having a retractable insert configured to protrude from a surface of the cylindrical body (see Fig. 1, #7/3 extending beyond #2; see also Fig. 7), the plurality of holding assemblies being operable through a pneumatic system supplied by a pressured fluid (see Fig. 1, duct #12 which provides pressurized air – see also Col. 3, ll. 3-12),
wherein the pneumatic system comprises:
a first supply branch for providing pressurized fluid to a plurality of retractable inserts.
Obiol does not teach three zones. As such, Obiol does not teach a first zone defined by a first radial half of the cylindrical body, a second supply branch for providing pressurized fluid to a plurality of retractable inserts located in a second zone and a third zone, wherein the second zone and the third zone are defined by distinct radial portions present in a second radial half of the cylindrical body, and wherein valve means are provided linked to a control unit to control the fluid flow, such that the valve means is configured to selectively place the first supply branch in fluid communication with a portion of the retractable inserts within the second radial half.
However, Papadopoulos teaches that it is known in the art of securing plates to rotating cylinders to provide three zones (see Papadopoulos, Figs. 14-15 , showing three different plates each secured by way of different pneumatic zones). Papadopoulos teaches a first zone (see Papadopoulos, Fig. 15, pneumatic zone created by a first control valve #137), a second supply branch for providing pressurized fluid to a plurality of retractable inserts located in a second zone (see Papadopoulos, Fig. 15, pneumatic system/zone created by a second control valve #137) and a third zone (see Papadopoulos, Fig. 15, pneumatic system/zone created by a third control valve #137).
In the same field of invention, securing plates to rotating cylinders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide different “zones” to the pneumatic system of Obiol. Doing so allows the user to secure different plates to different areas of the device, thus allowing the user to secure one plate to the device before securing the second plate to the device.
Welch teaches that it is known in the art of securing plates to a roller wherein the plate is 180 degrees around the perimeter of the roller (see Welch, Figs. 8-9, #10). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to modify the size of the plate to extend around the permitter at 180 degrees of the roller, and a corresponding attachment zone since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141.
Here, changing the different attachment zones sizes for different sized plates would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, and would allow the user to have plates with different characteristics placed on the workpieces. In other words, the larger the perimeter of the plate the longer the plate contacts the workpiece. As such, a plate that covers 180 degrees of the roller imparts, for example, an embossing twice as long the direction of the workpiece as a plate that covers 90 degrees of the roller.
The Examiner notes that, for example Figs. 14-15 of Papadopoulos teaches three plates. If the first plate covers, 180 degrees the remaining two plates would cover 90 degrees each. This would read on “a first zone defined by a first radial half of the cylindrical body,” and “wherein the second zone and the third zone are defined by distinct radial portions present in a second radial half of the cylindrical body.”
Additionally, Harrison teaches that it is known in the art of fixing plats on cylinders to provide a control unit (see Harrison Fig. 6; see also Para. 0029-37) to control the fluid flow (see Para. 0029), such that the valve means is configured to selectively place the first supply branch in fluid communication with a portion of the retractable inserts within the second radial half (see Harrison Figs. 1-2, #22/21/23). In the same field of invention, fixing plates to cylinders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a control system as taught by Harrison. Doing so permits simultaneous control and actuation of the mechanisms (see Para. 0029-37).
In re Claim 5, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the retractable inserts are distributed on the body surface of the cylinder in a plurality of alignments running parallel to each other (see Obiol, Fig. 2, #3 in view of Fig. 1 of Obiol).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,171,885 to Obiol in view of US 6,716,017 to Papadopoulos, US 3,670,646 to Welsh and US 2003/0066405 to Harrison, and further in view of US 4,561,355 to Cuir.
In re Claim 2, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, is silent as to the valve means comprise at least one non-return valve and a switch operable by means of a manually operated lever.
However, Cuir teaches that it is known in the art to provide a non-return valve in the system for fixing a plate on a cylinder (see Cuir, Fig. 2, #17, and Col. 2, ll. 18-21). In the same field of invention, a system for fixing a plate on a cylinder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a non-return valve to the system of modified Obiol. Doing so prevents inadvertent entry of air after stopping the vacuum pump, thereby maintaining pressure in the system, even in a power failure situation (see Cuir, Col. 2, ll. 18-21).
Additionally, Cuir teaches that it is known in the art to provide a switch (see Cuir, Fig. 2, common lever #28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize a manual switch or handle in the pneumatic system of modified Obiol. Doing so allows the user to control the device. Manual controls allow the user to visually see if the device is on or off.
In re Claim 4, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, does not teach teaches wherein the pneumatic system comprises three pressurized fluid inlet supply branches, each of the supply branches being in fluid communication with a respective zone.
However, Cuir teaches wherein a pneumatic system comprises three pressurized fluid inlet supply branches (see Cuir, Fig. 2, the examiner notes that each system would have a separate lever (#28) as associated pneumatic pathways), each of the supply branches being in fluid communication with a respective zone (see Cuir, Fig. 2 in view of Papadopoulos, Fig. 15).
In the same field of invention, a system for fixing a plate on a cylinder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add a non-return valve to the system of modified Obiol. Doing so prevents inadvertent entry of air after stopping the vacuum pump, thereby maintaining pressure in the system, even in a power failure situation (see Cuir, Col. 2, ll. 18-21).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,171,885 to Obiol in view of US 6,716,017 to Papadopoulos, US 3,670,646 to Welsh and US 2003/0066405 to Harrison, and further in view of US 2009/0320705 to Koblinger.
In re Claim 3, modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, teaches the pneumatic system has a pressurized fluid inlet supply branch being linked to the first zone (see Obiol, Fig. 1, #12 and Col. 3, ll. 3-12 teaching a line of pressurized air connected to the duct #12). Modified Obiol, in re Claim 1, does not teach a second supply branch linked to the second and third zones. However, Koblinger teaches that it is known in the art of providing air to cylinders to provide multiple branches to the cylinder (see Koblinger, Fig. 11, #31/31/31). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to separate the “zones” of modified Obiol and to provide different air lines to the second and third zone. Doing so would allow the second and third zones to work when the first zone is damaged. In addition, if the second and third zones were damaged the first zone would work. This makes the device more versatile.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments to the claims obviated the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights