# Tuc-Loc Platen Rubber



## LoiterLLC (Jan 28, 2007)

I am wondering if anyone is familiar with the rubber used on Tuc-Loc Platens and where I could buy it.


----------



## Marek Micak (Aug 2, 2012)

Hi there. 

Did you ever find out ?
I am wondering too.


----------



## Livingston (Dec 20, 2010)

We went through a lot of R&D to find the right rubber and adhesive so it lasts. Rarely do we see any warranty issues with this supplier. The platens might look simple but there is a lot of work behind something so light, flat, durable, and adjustable.

There is nothing stopping you from making your own platens (besides the low ROI compared to using your printer to make product of course), but I would like to politely ask that you not post on a public forum how to infringe on our patent. Doing so is considered patent infringement.

If it is something custom you are looking to make, let us know the dimensions, we likely have the size or can make it. We make everything here in Colorado and can ship most sizes in a few days. Some platens have to be bought though dealers, check the website or give us a call if not sure. Good luck.

Darren Livingston


----------



## catldavis (Mar 31, 2012)

Livingston said:


> There is nothing stopping you from making your own platens (besides the low ROI compared to using your printer to make product of course), but I would like to politely ask that you not post on a public forum how to infringe on our patent. Doing so is considered patent infringement.


I certainly don't condone patent infringement, but I think you know it's a stretch to call his asking about the rubber you use in your platen a patent infringement since the rubber has a non-infringement use. Maybe he's going to use it for a thousand of other uses. I certainly wouldn't tell him where I purchase it, but I also would be careful accusing someone of patent infringement.


----------



## Marek Micak (Aug 2, 2012)

Is replacing damaged rubber a crime ?


----------



## Livingston (Dec 20, 2010)

Marek,
Sorry if I jumped to an inaccurate conclusion. I was just hoping to avoid someone posting a partial Bill of Materials for our products for what I hope are obvious and reasonable reasons. Going around the manufacturer usually indicates someone looking to "DIY". Again, not illegal (as far as I know, definitely not enforceable) to do as long as you are not selling them or posting to tell others how to do it. Imitation is the highest form of flattery and I understand the desire or need to DIY at times. Again, sorry if I interpreted your intent incorrectly but I'd still prefer not to have a parts list posted here.

If you are having issues with one of our products. Our phone number is on the serial number sticker or our link is on the left side of this page as a sponsor. Give us a call with that serial number and we will see what we can do. If your platen is within or even a bit over a year old, I'll replace it and cover your shipping. If older, we can certainly help you repair it or replace the parts that are worn. We are pretty generous with our warranty and repairs since we rarely have issues and can therefore afford to make a customer happy when something does go wrong. 

Adam,
Thanks for the input. I am not a lawyer so I don't know where that line is. Is a partial BOM infringement or does it take the full BOM? I didn't know where this post was going and didn't want someone to intentionally or unintentionally "step in it". Could you agree that even if the first two posts were looking to use the product for non-printing activities or even repair an old platen, posting on the T-Shirt Forums would give other users information on how to infringe? 

Darren Livingston


----------



## atarizzz (Dec 17, 2015)

Livingston said:


> Marek,
> Sorry if I jumped to an inaccurate conclusion. I was just hoping to avoid someone posting a partial Bill of Materials for our products for what I hope are obvious and reasonable reasons. Going around the manufacturer usually indicates someone looking to "DIY". Again, not illegal (as far as I know, definitely not enforceable) to do as long as you are not selling them or posting to tell others how to do it. Imitation is the highest form of flattery and I understand the desire or need to DIY at times. Again, sorry if I interpreted your intent incorrectly but I'd still prefer not to have a parts list posted here.
> 
> If you are having issues with one of our products. Our phone number is on the serial number sticker or our link is on the left side of this page as a sponsor. Give us a call with that serial number and we will see what we can do. If your platen is within or even a bit over a year old, I'll replace it and cover your shipping. If older, we can certainly help you repair it or replace the parts that are worn. We are pretty generous with our warranty and repairs since we rarely have issues and can therefore afford to make a customer happy when something does go wrong.
> ...



Hi Darren, 

I apologize in advance as this might be an unintentionally uncomfortable question if I am correct with my analysis. I'm trying to understand the patent(s) that Livingston actually has been awarded for the "TucLoc" style systems, because I want to be sure not to infringe on them myself if I were to invent a new platen. 

That said, I have spent some time reading USPTO Patent #7,854,200 and examining the associated images. I am not a lawyer, but if that is the only patent that Livingston has for the "TucLoc" style platens, then it would seem that sometime around Summer of 2010 you changed the design and now produce a materially different invention. Is that right? 

From what I see on the newer TucLoc designs, the patent-protected platen system included a key "C" shaped flange/channel which seems is no longer part of the current TucLoc platens sold. It was part of your earlier manufactured platens which seemed nearly identical (?) to the images depicted in the patent filing. Which is great since you were patenting the actual invention you wanted to protect.

I can only imagine if the "C" flange was removed it was due to customers wishing to tuck more of the material under the platen and out of the way. As a bonus, I would guess dropping the channel/flange would also save some material and labor cost.

Maybe I am missing something. Were there any additional patents or claims that that cover the newer design that uses ONLY the two facing compressible seals (rubber pieces) glued to the bottom of the platen and top of the base?

If not, I am not a lawyer, but I am not seeing or understanding where this newer type of design is covered by the 7,854,200. I'm also not sure, but due to rules of public disclosure could it be possible that since the newer, possibly "improved", design (omitting the "C" channel) has been in the public domain since at least the middle of 2010, it may no longer be eligible for its own unique patent? 

Just some questions, thoughts & observations for people wiser than myself on these topics. Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't want to have an incorrect understanding here.


----------



## Livingston (Dec 20, 2010)

> I can only imagine if the "C" flange was removed it was due to customers wishing to tuck more of the material under the platen and out of the way. As a bonus, I would guess dropping the channel/flange would also save some material and labor cost.


Bingo.

Not sure why Livingston Systems is such a target lately. I'll take it as a compliment. You should ask a lawyer if your idea infringes on my patent, I'm a mechanical engineer. 

Darren


----------



## atarizzz (Dec 17, 2015)

Livingston said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Not sure why Livingston Systems is such a target lately. I'll take it as a compliment. You should ask a lawyer if your idea infringes on my patent, I'm a mechanical engineer.
> 
> Darren


I'm confident at this point that my own idea is clear. 

Inventions can sometimes become a "target" if their active enforcement is having an chilling effect on innovation. In more than one post on this forum, you've suggested that people are infringing on your patent after they have shared their creations with the community. 

Of course you are not sharing that your patented designs seem to depend on flange or channel mounted to the platen - similar to what was included in your earlier design (used up until around 2009?).

As example, I don't personally see how a design like the one shared here on the forum by Maya (made by her husband), or those shown on Youtube in Ufoprinter demos infringe on your patent. It's fairly easy to see if a flange is being used or not. But both of these designs have been reprimanded here and suggested to be infringing on your patent. If they are not mounting the rubber within a channel or flange, are they?

I think I understand the limited scoping though. At the time, the inventor may have assumed that not having a "flange" for backing/support of the rubber would result in the rubber coming loose over time, resulting in a low quality/high support product. But as you said here you spent R&D time to find both rubber and adhesive (that would support omitting the flange and having the rubber stand on its own?). And.... viola! A new invention was born? 

It's a little revealing that only now you are citing that you can't tell me if your invention & patent coverage depends on the use of a flange/channel or not for placement of the seals. Now you are only a mechanical engineer - but before it seems like you can quickly tell anyone with two pieces of facing rubber glued along the perimeter that they are infringing on your patent. 

I apologize again though, I'm sure it's uncomfortable to be asked to discuss the scope of your patent on a public forum like this. You guys are obviously highly innovative and a great vendor to the industry regardless of what your patent actually covers. I just hope going forward you & other would-be inventors or makers in this community will consider this discussion.


----------



## Livingston (Dec 20, 2010)

Ok, I'll feed the troll.



> If they are not mounting the rubber within a channel or flange, are they?


In my opinion, yes, it would infringe on Claim 1 which is an "independent claim". Claim 1 stands alone from the C channel in the other claims. Claim 1 is very broad. 



> I am not a lawyer, but I am not seeing or understanding where this newer type of design is covered by the 7,854,200. I'm also not sure, but due to rules of public disclosure could it be possible that since the newer, possibly "improved", design (omitting the "C" channel) has been in the public domain since at least the middle of 2010, it may no longer be eligible for its own unique patent?


We had one year from public disclosure of the new rubber mounting style to file a claim. We were advised and decided it was not worthwhile as it was covered in claim 1 and would likely have been dismissed by the USPTO as "obvious to anyone skilled in the art". 

If your business plan starts with a legal battle, you might want to reconsider.

If your intent is to build an invention off of the TucLoc platen where you would need the cooperation of the original patent owner to do anything but lock up your own invention until 2026, you are going about it in an interesting way. And this is coming from a guy who got an Atari Thowback 6 for Christmas. 



> I'm confident at this point that my own idea is clear.


I am not clear on what you are clear about.

Darren Livingston


----------



## atarizzz (Dec 17, 2015)

Livingston said:


> Ok, I'll feed the troll.
> 
> In my opinion, yes, it would infringe on Claim 1 which is an "independent claim". Claim 1 stands alone from the C channel in the other claims. Claim 1 is very broad.
> 
> ...


Not sure why you would think calling me a "troll" or resort to insults will help here. As far as gaming consoles go, to date myself... I had an intellivision... that was pretty cool, but I digress. 

As I originally stated, I have no intent to build or infringe on your actual patented invention. Since you are active in informing people of when you think they are infringing on your patent (that I've seen, without specifically citing the patent #) I just want to be sure I don't step on your toes with a new and improved platen design. I suppose I am now anyway since you're down to name calling. Not my intention, sorry. I'm not trying to be a prick of a potential competitor, I'm just really genuinely trying to understand what your patent covers, exactly. Any help you can provide with clarifying that will obviously be appreciated.

As far as the actual patent goes, again assuming we're talking about #7854200 (?), Claim #1 is not that broad at all in my opinion. I initially thought it was, too. But after re-reading a few times and studying everything, it is clear to me that claim #1 still comprises the use of open flanges with the rubber being mounted "IN" those flanges - just like the product you were primarily manufacturing way back when. 

In Claim #3 and in drawings you give specific example of your definition of those "flanges" and there are other characteristics and options of those "flanges" spelled out later. But really the patent claims either refer to #1 or #3. #3 being very specific, #1 being slightly broader (imo) in that it doesn't state the SHAPE of the flanges this time.

I'm not sure that a "rubber sandwich" (as it may be) is covered by the patent. Are you? Not without the flanges.

Personally, I think you know well what your patent says and maybe you are trolling ME and the rest of us here 

Aside from this specific discussion of patents, I'm genuine though that you guys seem to have built a great business and brand, and I respect the creative thinking and innovation the inventor has. I hope you guys do well with the newest patented platen design, it looks promising.


----------



## Livingston (Dec 20, 2010)

Good luck on your idea. I do hope you can find a way to do it without infringing on anyone's IP.

Darren


----------



## atarizzz (Dec 17, 2015)

Livingston said:


> Good luck on your idea. I do hope you can find a way to do it without infringing on anyone's IP.
> 
> Darren


I'm primarily involved with web app development and computerized systems... an IP minefield. In that space, patents seem to exist for every keyboard stroke and coded function 

Highly tangible touchable things like this are dream to understand, comparatively. 

Sorry to have offended you, it was and remains my intent to understand your patent coverage. No better voice for the spirit of the original patent claims than the inventor & Co. Notwithstanding the recommendations to consult with an IP attorney, I think we've probably both participated enough to add more information on the topic for anyone seriously thinking about entering that market.


----------



## NICKCTA (Mar 13, 2007)

No idea, Darren, I'm calling now and ordering a couple of Platen's. I don't know if its new or hard to invent technology but the way your defending it must be its worth something lol


----------

