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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sugimoto et al. (US 8495958). Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto et al. disclose “a printing unit of a printing press or a rotary die cutter for printing sheets and/or webs of printing substrates (Figures 1 and 2), said printing unit comprising: a machine frame with at least two frame walls (column 8, lines 30-32), arranged opposite one another on both sides of a product flow (see the configuration in Figures 2 and 5), and with at least one crossbeam (Figure 5), which transversely connects the at least two frame walls, a printing cylinder (item 35) that is arranged in the machine frame (Figures) and oriented in the transverse direction and has a first rotational axis (Figure 2), wherein the printing cylinder transfers printing medium to the printing substrate, an anilox roller (item 36) that is oriented in the transverse direction and has a second rotational axis (Figure 2), wherein said anilox roller is arranged in the machine frame in such a way that the anilox roller and the printing cylinder roll on one another in at least one operating state (Figure 2), a first adjustment device (Figure 2) that is connected to the anilox roller and has at least a first adjustment drive (item 104) and an adjustable path limiter (Examiner interprets the part of the eccentric roller 106 that contacts item 105 to be the path limiter), wherein a distance of the second rotational axis of the anilox roller to the first rotational axis of the printing cylinder can be changed by means of the at least one first adjustment drive, and wherein a minimal distance of the second rotational axis of the anilox roller to the first rotational axis of the print cylinder is predetermined by the adjustable path limiter (column 8, lines 33-53, Figure 2), and an electronic control (item 151), wherein the at least one first adjustment drive is connected to the at least one electronic control in a controllable manner (column 10, lines 11-15), and at least one second adjustment device (everything except the contact portion of the eccentric roller 106) connected to the adjustable path limiter to adjust a position of the adjustable path limiter relative to the anilox roller (column 8, lines 41-53), wherein the at least one second adjustment device has at least one second adjustment drive (column 8, line 44).
Regarding claim 5, Sugimoto et al. further disclose “wherein the at least one first adjustment drive exerts a first actuating force in an adjusting direction, and in that the second adjustment drive exerts a second actuating force in the same adjusting direction (Figure 2), wherein the second actuating force of the second adjustment drive is at least intermittently greater than the first actuating force of the first adjustment drive such that the second adjustment drive is suitable for overriding the first adjustment drive (Figure 2, column 8, lines 41-53).” Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto et al. further disclose “wherein the first adjustment device has at least one arm (item 101), which is arranged on the at least one machine frame (Figures 2 and 5) so as to be pivotable about a third rotational axis (item 102), and at least one stop (item 105), which is arranged on the at least one arm (Figure 2) and is pivoted together with the at least one arm (Figure 2), wherein the anilox roller is supported on the at least one arm and rotatable about the second rotational axis (Figure 2), the at least one first adjustment drive supports the at least one arm against the machine frame in such a way that the at least one first adjustment drive defines a pivoting position of the at least one arm relative to the machine frame (Figure 2), the adjustable path limiter comprises the at least one at least one stop and is movable relative to the at least one arm (Figure 2; Examiner interprets stopper 105 to be ‘movable’ in that it is a separate component and therefore can be removed from the arm), and the at least one second adjustment device defines a position of the at least one stop relative to the at least one arm (Figure 2, column 8, lines 41-53).” Regarding claim 7, Sugimoto et al. further disclose “comprising at least one cam (Examiner interprets the inner portion of the eccentric roller 106 to be the cam) arranged in the machine frame (Figures 2 and 5), wherein the at least one cam is rotatable relative to the machine frame (Figure 2) about a fourth rotational axis (column 8, lines 41-46) and together with the at least one stop defines the pivoting position of the at least one arm (Figure 2).” Regarding claim 8, Sugimoto et al. disclose “a method for positioning an anilox roller relative to a printing cylinder by means of at least one first adjustment device (item 104) with a first adjusting movement (column 8, lines 36-40), wherein the anilox roller assumes: a predetermined operating position (α) along the first adjusting movement (column 8, lines 39-40: the contact position).”
Regarding claim 9, only that which is optional is recited; thus, no required steps are recited which define over the method of Sugimoto et al. Regarding claim 10, only that which is optional is recited; thus, no required steps are recited which define over the method of Sugimoto et al.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including that item 104 is an air cylinder, but fail to disclose “wherein the at least one first adjustment device has a first adjustment drive in the form of at least one bellows that can be acted upon with a fluid.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of filing of the invention, air cylinders designed with bellows were known to be suitable as air cylinders. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use an air cylinder with bellows because they were known in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP §2144.07. Regarding claims 3 and 4, Sugimoto et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including that eccentric roller has an adjusting motor (column 8, line 44), but fails to disclose the specifics of the motor. That is, Sugimoto et al. fail to disclose “wherein the at least one second adjustment device has a second adjustment drive in the form of at least one lifting cylinder that can be acted upon with a fluid” or that “at least one quick-action ventilating valve that is connected to the at least one lifting cylinder by means of a pressure line.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of filing of the invention, a lifting cylinder that can be acted upon with a fluid, said lifting cylinder having at least one quick-action ventilating valve connected to it by means of a pressure line, was a known manner of providing a driving force. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a lifting cylinder as recited in order to provide a driving force for the eccentric roller of Sugimoto et al. See MPEP §2144.07.
Since Applicant did not adequately traverse that which was asserted as being common knowledge, that which was taken to be common knowledge is now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP §2144.03(c). See also the discussion in the following section regarding claims 2-4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument Sugimoto et al. does not disclose at least one second adjustment device connected to the adjustable path limiter to adjust a position of the adjustable path limiter relative to the anilox roller is not correct. Examiner interprets all of the parts of the eccentric roller 106, except the part that touches item 105, to be the second adjustment device. Since the roller 106 is eccentric, the distance from the axis to the contact surface is not the same at all rotation angles. Therefore, when roller 106 rotates, the part that contacts item 105 is moved because the rotation of the roller 106 about its axis requires the distance between the axis of rotation and the contact surface to change.
Applicant’s argument that second adjustment drive does not exert a second actuating force in the same direction as the first direction is not correct. As shown in Figure 2 of Sugimoto et al., air cylinder 104 exerts a force in the horizontal direction, causing the arm 101 to move rotationally about axis 102. When the eccentric roller rotates, it exerts a horizontal force on item 105, causing the arm 101 to rotate about the same axis 102. Therefore, the directions are the same.
Applicant’s argument that the forces would oppose each other is not persuasive, as this contradicts Applicant’s disclosure about Applicant’s own forces. In fact, Applicant’s forces 403 and 201 are shown to be opposing forces in Figure 1. See the arrows of 403 and 201.
Applicant’s argument that Sugimoto et al. do not disclose that the force could be used to override the first adjustment drive is not persuasive. Column 8, lines 43-53 clearly discloses that the air cylinder 104 is used to turn the lever 101 until the stopper is abutted against the eccentric roller 106. After this contact, the eccentric roller is turned to adjust the lever 101 in order to adjust the contact state of the roller and the printing plate. In order to do this adjustment, the eccentric roller must exert a force greater than the force exerted by the cylinder 104.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6 and 8-10 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s traversal of Examiner’s taking of Official Notice, to adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. Since Applicant did not adequately traverse that which was asserted as being common knowledge, that which was taken to be common knowledge is now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP §2144.03(c).
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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853