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 Objections
Claim 5 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “ascale” should read –a scale--.
In claim 8, “faceseals” should read –face seals--.
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the upper support". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim which currently depends from Claim 2. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to depend from claim 6 where “an upper support” is introduced.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US2022/0072781) hereinafter Taylor.
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches:
A printing-plate lift (Fig 11a, c), wherein the printing-plate lift comprises:
- a lower support (Fig 11a, c: lower horizontal frame supports 1106),
- a plate holder for supporting a printing plate (Fig 11a, c: unlabeled plate supporting printbed 1119),
- a plate-holder support, wherein the plate holder is attached to the plate-holder support (Fig 11a, c: printbed support assembly 1120, base plate 1122),
a threaded shaft (Fig 11a, c: lead screw 1124a), wherein the threaded shaft is oriented vertically and rotationally supported relative to the lower support (Fig 11a, c; [0278-0279, 0282, 0313]),
- a drive unit having a drive shaft for delivering torque (Fig 12: motor 1140, unlabeled drive shaft on which pulley 1142 is mounted), wherein the drive shaft is positioned beside the threaded shaft (Fig 12), and
- a power transmission operationally connecting the drive shaft of the drive unit and the threaded shaft, wherein the power transmission is configured to rotate the threaded shaft at a rotation of the drive shaft (Fig 12: belt 1148; pulleys 1142, 1144a; [0313-0315]).
Taylor does not teach the printing-plate lift is for metal-binder jetting.
However, this limitation is recited as intended use and the printing-plate lift of Taylor would be usable for metal-binder jetting.
Taylor does not teach a ball screw having a threaded shaft and a ball nut, wherein the threaded shaft is oriented vertically and rotationally supported relative to the lower support, and the ball nut is attached to the plate-holder support.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Taylor teaches the lead screw mechanisms can be substituted with ball screw mechanisms ([0284]) comprising a ball screw having a threaded shaft and a ball nut (Fig 1b, c: ball screw mechanism 136, rotatable screw 140; [0141-0142, 0232]), wherein the threaded shaft is oriented vertically and rotationally supported relative to the lower support, and the ball nut is attached to the plate-holder support (Fig 1b, c; [0141-0142, 0232]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the lead screw mechanisms as taught by Taylor with the ball screw mechanism as taught by the alternative embodiment of Taylor and the results would have been predictable since Taylor explicitly teaches said substitution.
Regarding claim 2, Taylor teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Taylor further teaches wherein the printing-plate lift further comprises:
- a first guide rod and a second guide rod (Fig 11a, c: stabilizing rods 1128a, b), wherein the first guide rod and the second guide rod are attached to the lower support and oriented vertically, or parallel to the threaded shaft of the ball screw (Fig 11a, c),
- wherein the plate-holder support is slidably supported by the first guide rod and the second guide rod and configured to move along the first guide rod and the second guide rod (Fig 11a, c; [0285]).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
wherein the plate-holder support comprises:
- a base part extending between the first guide rod and the second guide rod, wherein the ball nut is attached to the base part (Fig 11a, c: base plate 1122; [0272-0285]), and
- a center part having a lower end and an upper end (Fig 11a, c: printbed support assembly 1120), wherein the lower end is attached to the base part at the center between the first guide rod and the second guide rod (Fig 11a, c), and the plate holder is attached, or fixed, to the center part at the upper end (Fig 11a, c).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Linthicum et al. (US2015/0321419) hereinafter Linthicum.
Regarding claim 3, Taylor teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Taylor further teaches wherein the printing-plate lift further comprises: - a first guide and a second guide that slidably cooperate with the first guide rod and the second guide rod, respectively (Fig 11a, c; [0285]).
Taylor does not teach wherein first guide and the second guide are linear plain bearings.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lifters, Linthicum teaches using linear plain bearings to provide a path of travel on corresponding guide rails for the motivation of reducing friction while providing linear motion ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second guides as taught by Taylor to be linear plain bearings as taught by Linthicum in order to reduce friction while providing linear motion.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Groenenboom et al. (US2020/0307086) hereinafter Groenenboom.
Regarding claim 5, Taylor teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Taylor does not teach wherein the printing-plate lift further comprises: - a linear encoder comprising a sensor that is fixed in position relative to the lower support and a scale that is attached to the center part of the plate-holder support, wherein the sensor and the scale cooperate and are configured to determine the vertical position of the plate-holder support relative to the lower support.
In the same field of endeavor regarding lifters, Groenenboom teaches a printing-plate lift (platform lift 10) comprising: - a linear encoder (optical position sensing system 1) comprising a sensor that is fixed in position relative to a lower support (Fig 7-8: reader 3; [0022]) and a scale that is attached to a center part of a plate-holder support (Fig 7-8 encoder strip 2), wherein the sensor and the scale cooperate and are configured to determine the vertical position of the plate-holder support relative to the lower support for the motivation determining the position of the platform ([0015, 0022, 0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lift as taught by Taylor to include the optical position sensor as taught by Groenenboom in order to determine the position of the platform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Taylor teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Taylor further teaches wherein the printing-plate lift further comprises:
- an upper support, wherein the first guide rod and the second guide rod are attached to the upper support (Fig 11a, c: upper horizontal frame supports).
Taylor does not teach the upper support forms a central aperture through which the center part of the plate-holder support extends.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the upper support forms a central aperture through which the center part of the plate-holder support extends in combination with the remaining subject matter of the claim.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is indicated for allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, Taylor teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Taylor further teaches wherein the plate holder defines a planar upper surface (Fig 11a, c; [0287])
Taylor does not teach the plate holder comprises:
- three face seals extending from the upper surface for sealing to a printing plate, wherein the face seals are positioned to define an isosceles triangle having an apex corner and two side corners, and
- an evacuation inlet located within each face seal for allowing the pressure within the face seal to be reduced, wherein one of the face seals is positioned at the apex corner and the other two face seals are positioned at the side corners, each face seal encloses a seal area, and the seal area of the face seal at the apex corner is greater than the seal area of each of the faceseals at the side corners.
Scott et al. (US2011/0241947 of record) hereinafter Scott teaches a plate holder (Fig 6: upper plate 660) comprising:
- three face seals extending from an upper surface for sealing to a printing plate (Fig 6: holes 670; [0073-0077]), wherein the face seals are positioned to define an isosceles triangle having an apex corner and two side corners (Fig 6), and
- an evacuation inlet located within each face seal for allowing the pressure within the face seal to be reduced, wherein one of the face seals is positioned at the apex corner and the other two face seals are positioned at the side corners, each face seal encloses a seal area (Fig 6; [0073-0077]).
Scott does not teach the seal area of the face seal at the apex corner is greater than the seal area of each of the face seals at the side corners. The seal area of each face seal appears to be identical in Fig 6 of Scott.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the seal area of the face seal at the apex corner is greater than the seal area of each of the faceseals at the side corners in combination with the remaining subject matter of the claim.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is indicated for allowable subject matter.
Claims 9-12 is indicated for allowable subject matter due to dependency on claim 8.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 is indicated for allowable subject matter due to dependency on claim 6 (see 112b rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights