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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 13 May 2025 has been entered.
A new Claim objection has been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have voided interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation section has been removed from the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claim 3. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 5-7 filed 13 May 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Claim 3 is 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.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 13 May 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-4 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claim to recite: “a suction port…configured to suck outside gas…”. Appropriate correction is required. This new objection is provided based on the amended portion of the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US-20210122171-A1, effective filing date of 28 October 2019) in view of Sasaki (US-20180004143-A1) and Yamamota et al. (US-20160349675-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a heating device (heaters 17-1, 17-2, 17-3, and 17-4, fig. 3) configured to heat a medium (recording medium 150, fig. 3) supported by a support surface (guide plate 18, fig. 3) inclined in a vertically downward direction (on the left side of fig. 3, the guide plate 18 is inclined vertically downwards) toward downstream in a transport direction (downstream of conveyance direction D, fig. 3) and transported in the transport direction (para 0030), the heating device comprising:
a heater (infrared heaters 17-4a, fig. 3) disposed facing the support surface and configured to heat the medium in a non-contact manner (para 0040);
a reflector (reflection plate 17-4f, fig. 3) configured to reflect heat rays of the heating unit toward the medium (para 0042);
a flow path member (curing fan 17-4e, fig. 3) disposed at an opposite side to the support surface with respect to the heater (curing fan 17-4e is above the infrared heaters 17-4a, fig. 3; on the opposite side or below the infrared heaters 17-4a is the guide plate 18, fig. 3; Applicant shows a similar arrangement in fig. 1 where the fan 46 is outside of the heating unit 31 and the support surface 23 is on the opposite side, inside the heating unit 31; in other words, Yamada teaches an arrangement where the claimed “heater” is between the claimed “flow path member” and the claimed “support surface,” which appears to be what this limitation requires) and is inclined in a vertically upward direction toward upstream in the transport direction (located above the plate 18 and inclined at an angle relative to the vertical axis towards the upstream direction (reverse of the direction D), fig. 3), the flow path member including
an air blower (fan 17-4 e, fig. 3) configured to generate an air flow in the gas flow path to a portion between the support surface and the heater (“the curing fan 17-4 e generates an air flow to control an increase in humidity near the recording medium 150 to accelerate drying of the ink on the recording medium 150,” para 0041);
a first thermostat (thermopile 17-4b, fig. 3; paras 0058-0062; a thermostat is not explicitly disclosed) disposed in the gas flow path (“the curing fan 17-4 e further blows air to the infrared heater 17-4 to control overheating of the infrared heater 17-4,” para 0042) and located in the vertically upward direction with respect to the heater (thermopile 17-4b is located above infrared heaters 17-4a, fig. 3), the first thermostat being configured to stop supplying current to the heater (not explicitly disclosed) when a first predetermined temperature (“control temperature B ° C,” para 0058; temperature B, fig. 5) is reached in the gas flow path (“The thermopile 17-4 b is a non-contact temperature sensor that measures the surface temperature of the recording medium 150” para 0040) when the medium is position on the support surface (“keeping the thermopile 17-4 b at the control temperature during preheating (B ° C.),” para 0059; “the controller 400 starts (enters) the printing operation P,” para 0060; construed such that the thermopile 17-4 b is kept at temperature B at the start of printing, fig. 5); and
a second thermostat (thermistor 17-4c and thermostat 17-4d, fig. 3) in contact with the reflector (reflection plate 17-4f, fig. 3), the second thermostat being configured to stop supplying the current to the heater (not explicitly disclosed) when a second predetermined temperature (“the thermopile 17-4 b becomes the control temperature (A ° C.),” para 0060) is reached in the reflector (“The thermistor 17-4 c measures a temperature of the reflection plate 17-4 f,” para 0041) when the medium is positioned on the support surface (“during the printing operation,” para 0060; fig. 5)
wherein the second predetermined temperature (temperature A, fig. 5) is higher than the first predetermined temperature (temperature B, fig. 5; temperature A is greater than temperature B in fig. 5).
Yamada, fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
1003
1169
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamada does not explicitly disclose a suction port disposed downstream in the transport direction, and sucked outside gas, an outlet disposed in the vertically upward direction, and a gas flow path disposed between the suction port and the outlet; an air blower configured to generate an air flow in the gas flow path so that gas is sucked from the suction port and is blown out, from the outlet; the first thermostat being configured to stop supplying current to the heater when a first predetermined temperature is reached; the second thermostat being configured to stop supplying the current to the heater when a second predetermined temperature is reached.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heating devices used to dry ink, Sasaki teaches a suction port (opening portion 67, fig. 2) disposed downstream in the transport direction (positioned downstream in the conveying direction Y, fig. 2), and sucked outside gas (air is sucked into portion 67, arrow in fig. 6 and para 0065; the air is construed as being gas that is outside the duct 68) an outlet (opening portion 66, fig. 2) disposed in the vertically upward direction (as shown in fig. 2), and a gas flow path disposed between the suction port and the outlet (arrow from 67 to 66, fig. 6); an air blower (blowing unit 69, fig. 6) configured to generate an air flow in the gas flow path so that gas is sucked from the suction port and is blown out, from the outlet (“the blowing unit is made to blow air inside the duct from the second opening portion toward the first opening portion,” para 0007; airflow continues and is blown out in the direction F2, fig. 6).
Sasaki, fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
916
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yamada to include, a suction port disposed downstream in the transport direction, and sucked outside gas, an outlet disposed in the vertically upward direction, and a gas flow path disposed between the suction port and the outlet; an air blower configured to generate an air flow in the gas flow path so that gas is sucked from the suction port and is blown out, from the outlet, in view of the teachings of Sasaki, by using the internal housing 62 and external housing 61, as taught by Sasaki, above the infrared heater 17-4 to connect to the fan 17-4e, as taught by Yamada, because a transportation defect may occur such that the medium becomes attached to the after-platen when transported, but by using the existing airflow already taught by Yamada, such that the airflow was redirected onto the medium using the internal and external housings, as taught by Sasaki, a force could then be applied onto the medium, for the additional benefit of making it possible to separate the medium from the guide surface in order to easily resolve the transportation defect (Sasaki paras 0004, 0007, and 0012).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that in the invention of Yamada, an internal housing 62 and an external housing 61 to produce an airflow, as taught by Sasaki, could be used for the fan 17-4e, as taught by Yamada, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Yamada is silent as to the using an airflow housing structure for the fan, Sasaki simply serves to demonstrate that such a modification would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Yamada.
Yamada/Sasaki do not explicitly disclose the first thermostat being configured to stop supplying current to the heater when a first predetermined temperature is reached, the second thermostat being configured to stop supplying the current to the heater when a second predetermined temperature is reached.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heating devices used to dry ink, Yamamoto teaches the first thermostat (thermostat 14a, fig. 7B) being configured to stop supplying current to the heater (“shut down the power supply to the infrared heaters H1 and H2,” para 0062) when a first predetermined temperature (“shut down power supply to the heating section when temperature becomes higher than a predetermined setting temperature,” para 0012) is reached (“shut down…second setting temperature is used,” para 0090), the second thermostat (thermostat 14b, fig. 7B) being configured to stop supplying the current to the heater when a second predetermined temperature (“shut down power supply to the heating section when temperature becomes higher than a predetermined setting temperature,” para 0012) is reached (“shut down…second setting temperature is used,” para 0090).
Yamamoto, fig. 7B
PNG
media_image3.png
432
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yamada to include, the first thermostat being configured to stop supplying current to the heater when a first predetermined temperature is reached, the second thermostat being configured to stop supplying the current to the heater when a second predetermined temperature is reached, in view of the teachings of Yamamoto, by using thermostat 14a, instead of using the thermopile 17-4b, as taught by Yamada, that stops the power supplied to the infrared heater when a second setting temperature is reached when paper is transported, as taught by Yamamoto, and by setting the thermistor 17-4c and thermostat 17-4d, as taught by Yamada, to a second setting temperature setting while a sheet of paper is being transported, as taught by Yamamoto, because when an overheating state occurs (e.g., 400° C), the reflection member deforms which can cause a printer jam, but the deformation can be prevented by using a temperature detection unit to shut down the heater to lower the temperature when a temperature threshold is detected, in which case, it is preferable to use temperature detection units that can be configured for a paper-is-present-temperature threshold (Yamamoto, paras 0009, 0011, 0068, 0073, and 0090; fig. 6B).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the thermopile 17-4b of Yamada would be replaced with a thermostat 14, where thermostats could be configured for a paper-is-present temperature setting, as taught by Yamamoto, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Yamada is silent as to the using a thermostat for the thermopile 17-4b, Yamamoto simply serves to demonstrate that such a substitution would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Yamada.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thermostat is attached to a portion of the flow path member where heat of the heater is propagated by convection.
However, in the same field of endeavor of heating devices used to dry ink, Sasaki teaches wherein the first thermostat (detecting unit 65, fig. 2) is attached to a portion of the flow path member (attached to internal housing 62, fig. 2) where heat of the heater is easily propagated by convection (“the detecting unit 65 detects the temperature of the detection region by, for example, detecting the amount of infrared rays reflected from the detection region on the guide surface 331,” para 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yamada to include, wherein the first thermostat is attached to a portion of the flow path member where heat of the heater is easily propagated by convection, in view of the teachings of Sasaki, by using the internal housing 62, as taught by Sasaki, to attach to a thermopile 17-4b, as taught by Yamada, because a transportation defect may occur such that the medium becomes attached to the after-platen when transported, but by using the existing airflow already taught by Yamada, such that the airflow was redirected onto the medium using the internal and external housings, as taught by Sasaki, a force can be applied onto the medium, for the additional benefit of making it possible to separate the medium from the guide surface in order to easily resolve the transportation defect (Sasaki paras 0004, 0007, and 0012).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches wherein in a plan view viewed from a direction orthogonal to the support surface (although fig. 3 is 2D image, a 3D projection onto a 2D plane is shown in fig. 2; the construed direction is the vertical direction shown in figs. 2-3 that is orthogonal to the horizontal portion of plate 18, fig. 3), the second thermostat is disposed so as to overlap the medium (construed such that in fig. 2D, when looking from top to bottom, the thermistor 17-4c and thermostat 17-4a overlap onto the medium 150, fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “each of the plurality of first thermostats…configured to stop supplying current to the heater when the first predetermined temperature is reached at the corresponding one of the plurality of flow paths.” The closest prior art of record is Shima (US-20030161552-A1). Shima teaches a configuration in fig. 10 of using multiple flow paths and temperature sensors to control heaters. However, Shima teaches that “each heating space 40A includes an independently controllable electric heater 41.” Instead of teaching that each of the sensors is used to “stop supplying current to the heater,” as claimed, Shima teaches independent control of each heating area by using independent heaters (paragraphs 0028-0029). Because of this independent control, Shima’s invention obtains an “optimal sublimation degree in each [heating] area” (paragraph 0087).
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to as claimed. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 13 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, while the Applicant’s arguments are directed to Yamamota (US20160349675), the rejection is based on a combination of Yamada (US20210122171) and Sasaki (US20180004143) with Yamamota.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 6 that Yamamota fails to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, a thermostat that can be configured to stop supplying current when a temperature is reached when a medium is positioned on a support surface, the Applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, it is an inherent characteristic of thermostats to stop electrical current when a certain temperature is reached (referencing MPEP 2114.I). Although the arguments suggest that the thermostat taught by Yamamota lacks this capability, respectfully submit that Yamamota teach this thermostat shutdown capability in paragraphs 0057-0063. As a result, the examiner maintains the position that configuring thermostats to electrically power-off heaters is a capability that is obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art
Page 6 references paragraph 0090 of Yamamoto and states that Yamamoto teaches away from configuring a thermostat to shut down a heater when paper is present. Admittedly, Yamamoto teaches in paragraph 0090 that a "first setting temperature is used when no sheet of paper is transported.” However, Yamamoto also teaches in this same sentence that a “second setting temperature is used while a sheet of paper is being transported.” Thus, in this section, Yamamoto does not “teach away” or criticize/discredit configuring a thermostat to power down when a sheet in present (referencing MPEP 2145.X.D.1). Instead, Yamamoto teaches that a thermostat can be configured to shut down a heater while a sheet of paper is being transported.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/28/2025
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761