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
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahler et al. (US 9,409,385 B2).
Claim 1: Ahler et al. discloses a primer apparatus that includes at least one roller mandrel (12 of Figure 1); an adapter (10 of Figure 1) mountable on the at least one roller mandrel, the adapter including a generally cylindrical roller body (34,36 of Figure 1) and including a plurality of fluid outlets (40 of Figure 1) distributed about an outer surface (36 of Figure 1) of the adapter and a supply to direct pressurized fluid to the plurality of fluid outlets (Col. 3, Lines 49-53); and a plurality of interchangeable elastically deformable annular sleeve members (Col. 4, Lines 23-47, Ahler et al. discloses using adapters of different diameters when using print sleeves of different sizes), the plurality of interchangeable elastically deformable annular sleeve members (disclosed print sleeves and image repeats) being axially positionable on the outer surface of the cylindrical roller body when pressurized fluid is expelled from the plurality of fluid outlets and being fixed relative to the cylindrical roller body in the absence of pressurized fluid flow (Col. 4, Lines 30-37).
Claim 3: Ahler et al. further discloses that the adapter further comprises an inlet in fluid communication with the supply (42 of Figure 1).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahler et al. (US 9,409,385 B2).
Claim 2: Ahler et al. fails to explicitly discloses that each wherein each of the plurality of interchangeable elastically deformable annular sleeve members has an axial length less than the axial length of the cylindrical roller body.
However, Ahler et al. does disclose a plurality of interchangeable elastically deformable annular sleeve members of varying sizes (print sleeves and image repeats sized for the required print job).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of the annular sleeve members of Ahler et al. in order to provide an annular sleeve member having an axial length less than the axial length of the cylindrical roller body since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahler et al. (US 9,409,385 B2) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Claim 4: As addressed above Ahler et al. discloses the inline primer as recited in claim 4. Further Ahler discloses a print press including a print engine to print on a substrate (Col. 3, Lines 21-34). While Ahler et al. discloses a portion of the limitations recited in claim 4, Ahler et al. fails to disclose that the print press includes an inline primer to receive substrate from a substrate supply, apply primer to at least selected regions of the substrate and provide the primed substrate to the print engine.
However, AAPA teaches an inline primer to receive substrate from a substrate supply, apply primer to at least selected regions of the substrate and provide the primed substrate to the print engine (paragraph [0002]-[0003] of applicant’s specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of AAPA with that of Ahler et la. in order to provide a print press including the inline primer of AAPA including the roller, annular sleeve, and fluid supply system of Ahler et al. This modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve a predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the predictable result would be a print press having the substrate supply of AAPA and the inline primer of Ahler et al.
Claim 5: Ahler et al. further discloses that the plurality of fluid outlets is connected to a fluid supply system (Col. 3, Lines 49-53) and the cylinder comprises an inlet (42 of Figure 1) to provide pressurized fluid.
Claim 6: Ahler et al. further discloses that the inlet is provided on a radial end wall of the cylinder (as depicted in Figure 1).
Claim 7: Ahler et al. further discloses that the plurality of fluid outlets includes at least one axially extending array of outlets (Col. 4, Lines 18-22, as depicted in Figure 1 there are two outlets 40 located at either end of the adapter 10).
Claim 8: Ahler et al. further discloses that the plurality of fluid outlets includes at least one circumferentially extending array of outlets (Col. 4, Lines 18-22, as depicted in Figure 1 there are two outlets 40 located 180° out from each other on either side and at one end of the adapter 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights