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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunayama, US 2018/0284651 A1 in view of Pall, US 2,925,650 and in further view of Yamanaka et al., US 2008/0083337 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sunayama teaches a toner duct 32, which reads on the claimed “particulate capturing device.” See Sunayama Fig. 4, [0045].
The toner duct 32 comprises an outflow duct 32C, which reads on the “vent pipe.” See Sunayama Fig. 4, [0045]. The outflow duct 32C comprises a “flow path space through which air containing fine particles flows,” which is the interior space of the outflow duct 32C, as seen in Fig. 4.
The toner duct 32 also comprises an air flow generating device 33 configured to generate an air flowing in a direction in which the air to be sent in the flow path of the duct 32C. See Sunayama Fig. 4, [0046]. The air flow generating device 33 reads on the “fan.”
The toner duct 32 also comprises a pre-filter in a state of crossing the flow path of the duct 32C in a direction intersecting the air flow (as the pre-filter is interpreted as extending in the same way as filter 35) and capable of capturing at least some of the fine particles in the air, because the pre-filter is a filter. Sunayama Fig. 4, [0045]. The pre-filter reads on the “collecting portion.”
PNG
media_image1.png
889
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sunayama differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the structural characteristics of the pre-filter. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach all of the details of the “collection device” as claimed.
But Pall teaches a mesh sheet that is useful as a gas filtration material. See Pall col. 1, ll. 15–30. The mesh has a thickness of 0.001 inch, which converts to 0.0254 mm. Id. at col. 5, ll. 70–74. The mesh also comprises a plurality of pores (“vent portions”) with an average pore size of 25 microns, which converts to 0.025 mm. Id. The pores are formed to linearly penetrate through the mesh because the pores fun straight through at roughly right angles to the surface of the mesh sheet. Id. at col. 2, ll. 62–66. Further, Yamanaka teaches a dust collecting filter comprising a prefilter comprising a mesh filter material. See Yamanaka [0067]. The mesh sheet of Pall is beneficial because it has a relatively low cost while being able to pass an extremely large volume of fluid. See Pall col. 2, ll. 10–21.
PNG
media_image2.png
753
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the mesh sheet of Pall as the filter material of the prefilter of Sunayama to provide a material that has relatively low cost while being able to pass a relatively large volume of fluid.
With this modification, the mesh sheet of Pall would read on the “vent plate.” The thickness value of 0.0254 mm is within the claimed range of a thickness of 5 mm or less. The average pore size value of 0.025 mm is within the claimed range of an opening size of 0.005 mm or more and 0.1 mm or less.
Regarding claim 2, Pall teaches that the mesh sheet has 225,000 pores per square inch, with the pores having an average size of 25 microns. See Pall col. 7, ll. 59–68, col. 5, ll. 70–74. The pores are roughly square, and therefore each pore has an area of about 625 µm2, which converts to 9.69 x 10-7 in2. This results in a 1 in2 piece of sheet material having 0.22 in2 of open space, meaning that the pores of the sheet material account for 22% of the area of the sheet material. When the sheet material of Pall is used as the pre-filter of Sunayama, the sheet material will cover an area of the outflow duct 32C, in the same way that the filter 35 covers an area of the duct 32C, as seen in Fig. 4. Therefore, because the pores of the sheet material account for 22% of the area of the sheet material with the sheet material itself covering an area of the duct 32C, this reads on the sheet material having an opening ratio of 22% with the opening ratio being a ratio of a total area of the plurality of pores to a flow path area of the duct 32C. The prior art value of 22% is within the claimed range of 20% or more and 60% or less.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Pall teaches that the mesh sheet (the “vent plate”) is formed as a mesh plate. See Pall col. 5, ll. 70–74.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Pall teaches that the mesh sheet (the “vent plate”) is formed as a porous plate. See Pall col. 5, ll. 70–74.
Regarding claims 7–12, Sunayama teaches that the pre-filter, which uses the mesh sheet material of Pall (the “vent plate”) is disposed on an upstream side of the air flow generating device 33 (the “fan”) because the filter 35 is upstream of the air flow generating device 33 (as seen in Fig. 4), and the prefilter is upstream of the filter 35.
Regarding claims 13–19, Sunayama teaches a color printer 1, which reads on the claimed “image forming device.” See Sunayama Fig. 1, [0018]. The color printer 1 comprises a scattering prevention structure 30 (the “exhaust portion”) configured to collect and exhaust air exiting a body of the color printer. Id. at Figs. 1, 4, [0022], [0042]. The scattering prevention structure 30 comprises the toner duct 32. Id. This reads on the “exhaust portion comprises the particulate capturing device according to [claims 1 to 7].”
Regarding claim 20, Sunayama teaches that the color printer 1 comprises a fixing device 7 (the “fixing device”) configured to thermally fix an unfixed toner image to a sheet S. See Sunayama Fig. 1, [0021].
Also, the scattering prevention structure 30 (the “exhaust portion”) comprises a port at the upstream end of outflow duct 32C (this port is the “suction port”) which is capable of collecting air exiting the fixing device 7 because the outflow duct 32C suctions toner particles and dust from the interior of the apparatus main body 2 where the fixing device 7 is located. See Sunayama Fig. 4, [0022], [0045].
The scattering prevention structure 30 further comprises a port at the downstream end of outflow duct 32C (the “exhaust port”) configured to exhaust the collected air to the outside. See Sunayama Fig. 4, [0045].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17–20 of copending Application No. 17/698,382 in view of Pall, US 2,295,650.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ’382 application teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 1, except that claim 1 of the ’382 application is silent as to the thickness of the metal vent plate. But Pall teaches a metal mesh material that can be used for gas filtration where the material has a thickness of 0.001, which converts to 0.0254 mm. See Pall col. 5, ll. 70–74. The mesh also comprises a plurality of pores (“vent portions”) with an average pore size of 25 microns, which converts to 0.025 mm. Id. The pores are formed to linearly penetrate through the mesh because the pores fun straight through at roughly right angles to the surface of the mesh sheet. Id. at col. 2, ll. 62–66. It would have been obvious to use the mesh material of Pall as the material of the metal vent plate of claim 1 of the ’382 application because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of the ’382 application teaches that the vent plate has an opening ratio of 10 to 20%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 20 to 60%.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 4, claim 3 of the ’382 application teaches that the vent plate is a mesh plate.
Regarding instant claims 5 and 6, claim 5 of the ’382 application teaches that the vent plate is a porous plate.
Regarding instant claims 7–12, claims 9 and 11 of the ’382 application teaches that the vent plate is disposed on an upstream side of the air flow generating fan in a direction in which the air is sent.
Regarding instant claims 13–19, claims 17–19 of the ’382 application teach an image forming device with the same structure described in instant claims 13–19.
Regarding instant claim 20, claim 20 of the of the ’382 application teaches the limitations of instant claim 20.
Note that these are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(f) Interpretations
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the “air flow generating portion” limitation because claim 1 is amended to describe this limitation as being a “fan,” which is a structural element.
The Examiner also withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of claim 20 because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a “fixing device” (configured to thermally fix an unfixed toner image to a recording medium) to be a class of structures that takes its name from the function it performs.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting Rejections
The Examiner maintains the double patenting rejections of claims 1–20 for the reasons stated above. The Examiner strongly encourages that the Applicant files a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejections to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Behlen, US 2,423,547, which teaches a filter material having a thickness of 0.0035 inch (0.0889 mm) with a plurality of openings 16 with an opening size of 0.003 inch (0.0762 mm), with the openings 16 formed to linearly penetrate the filter material (as seen in Fig. 3). See Behlen Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 34–37.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights