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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 4, 6, 10-17 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts (US Patent 4,693,179) in view of Scaefer (US Patent 2,382,920).
With respect to claim 1, Watts teaches a rotary screen-printing apparatus, comprising:
a rotary cylindrical screen (34);
a reservoir configured to hold a coating material (interior of print cylinder 34 can be considered to be a reservoir, Column 9, Lines 62-65, Column 16, Lines 49-56);
a first heater (89) having an output directed toward the reservoir and configured to heat and liquefy the coating material held in the reservoir (37, Figure 3, Column 16, Lines 25-47);
a first heat sensor (71) coupled to the reservoir (interior of print cylinder 34 can be considered to be a reservoir, Column 16, Lines 35-48);
a conduit (37) which provides fluid communication of the liquefied coating material from the reservoir into an internal volume of the rotary cylindrical screen (34, Figure 6); and,
a second heater (32) having an output is directed towards the conduit (Column 12, Lines 27-38, Column 18, Lines 63-67);
a second heat sensor (91) configured to detect a temperature associated with the coating material in the conduit (Column 9, Lines 62-65, Column 16, Lines 49-56, Figure 6); and
a controller in communication with the first heat sensor (71), the second heat sensor (91), the first heater (89) and the second heater (32) and configured to control the first heater (89) based on the output of the first sensor (71) so that the coating material held in the reservoir(interior of print cylinder 34 can be considered to be a reservoir, Column 9, Lines 62-65, Column 16, Lines 49-56) maintains a predetermined temperature (TR) above a liquification point of the coating material (Column 15, Lines 20-25) and to control the second heater (71) based on the second sensor so that the coating material maintains a second predetermined temperature (Tc) above a solidification point of the liquefied coating material as it passes through the conduit (Column 15, Lines 29-44).
However, Watts does not explicitly disclose a reservoir, located outside the rotary cylindrical screen and configure to hold a coating material. Scaefer teaches a reservoir (63), located outside a rotary cylindrical screen (2) and configure to hold a coating material (64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by Watts to provide a reservoir located outside the rotary cylindrical screen as taught by Scaefer for the purpose of providing better filtering and minimizing contamination risk of the cylinders internal volume.
With respect to claim 2, Watts teaches a second heat sensor (91) is configured to detect one of: a temperature of the conduit (Column 9, Lines 62-65, Column 16, Lines 49-56, Figure 6); a temperature of a fluid passing through the conduit; or, a temperature of a fluid discharged from the conduit to the internal volume of the rotary cylindrical screen.
With respect to claim 4, Watts teaches the second heat sensor (91) is disposed on an external surface of the conduit (37, Figure 6).
With respect to claim 6, Watts teaches a squeegee (38) fixedly disposed in the internal volume of the rotary cylindrical screen (34) so that the squeegee (38) does not rotate within the rotary cylindrical screen (34) when the rotary cylindrical screen is rotated (Column 14, Lines 32-38).
With respect to claims 10-17, Watts teaches the claimed invention with the exception of wherein Tc is lower than TR, Tc is lower than the liquification point of the coating material TR is from 0.1 to 5°C above the liquification point of the coating material, TR is from 0.1 to2°C above the liquification point of the coating material, TR is from 0.1 to 1°C above the liquification point of the coating material, Tc is from 0.1 to 2°C above the solidification point of the coating material, Tc is from 0.1 to 1°C above the solidification point of the coating material, Tc is from 0.1 to 0.5°C above the solidification point of the coating material.
However, it has been held that held that where general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperatures Tc is lower than TR, Tc is lower than the liquification point of the coating material TR is from 0.1 to 5°C above the liquification point of the coating material, TR is from 0.1 to2°C above the liquification point of the coating material, TR is from 0.1 to 1°C above the liquification point of the coating material, Tc is from 0.1 to 2°C above the solidification point of the coating material, Tc is from 0.1 to 1°C above the solidification point of the coating material or Tc is from 0.1 to 0.5°C above the solidification point of the coating material as claimed since such a modification would result in a variety of phases of liquification/solidification points of the coating material.
With respect to claim 22 and 23, Watts teaches the claimed invention with the exception of an additional heater of which the output heats the rotary cylindrical screen and the additional heater is a radiant heater disposed within the internal volume of the rotary cylindrical screen.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Plarza, 274, 124 USPQ 378 (1960). Watts does at least teach first (89) and second heaters (32), the second heater (32) is a radiant heater (Column 18, Line 63-Column 19, Line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to provide an additional heater since such a modification would effectively provide an additional heater that provides a rapid response heat inside a printing cylinder and loses heat rapidly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 18-19 and 21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant arguments on page 9, the applicant argues, “Schaefer’s element 63 is not a coating-material reservoir at all. Rather, as expressly described Schaefer, element 63 is a tank of heating medium (water or oil) that is part of an external heat-exchange loop. In this regard, Schaefer expressly states that "[t]he heater 63 may contain water or oil 64 heated by any suitable means, preferably an electric heating unit 65 supplied from any suitable source of current 66." Schaefer at p. 3, col. 1. A pump 67 then circulates the heated water or oil from tank 63 through pipes 62 and 61 which are immersed inside the stencil drum 2 in the coating solution and back to tank 63 via return pipe 69. (Schaefer, col. 1-2). Element 64 which is contained in the tank is therefore heating fluid, not the coating material”, however the examiner notes that “configured to hold a coating material” is intended use and the tank of Schaefer is capable of holding a fluid such as a coating material. Additionally, the coating material is not a positively recited feature and therefore is not structurally part of the rotary screen printing apparatus. Therefore, Schaefer teaches all the structure as recited, it thereby meets the claim language.
Additionally, with respect to the arguments on pages 9 and 10, “The coating material in Schaefer is not held in tank 63. Rather, "[t]he drum 2 forms a container for a quantity of the coating solution indicated at 49" (Schaefer, col. 2). Therefore, Schafer – Watts- - holds the coating material inside the rotating stencil drum, not in any external reservoir”, the examiner notes the limitation of “holding the coating material inside the rotating stencil drum” is not recited in the claims. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded of any error in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
