DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “all of the openings in the shroud” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui et al. (2021/0138791) in view of Hattori et al. (2017/0266964).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Fukui teaches a shroud assembly for a group of printheads that define a print zone in an inkjet printer, the assembly comprising:
a shroud (fig. 5, item 31, fig. 3, entire lower surface of item 20 facing media) spanning a full width of the print zone (see fig. 3) and having openings (fig. 5, items 311) therein through which the printheads (fig. 5, items 21) are exposed during printing (see fig. 5), wherein the group of printheads is arranged such that one row of printheads is in a staggered configuration relative to a second row of printheads (see fig. 3, note staggered printheads 21); and
an air injector (fig. 4, item 24, fig. 7, item 311) attached to or integral with the shroud (see figs. 4-7), the air injector spanning a full width of the print zone (see figs. 4-7) upstream from all of the openings in the shroud (see fig. 3, the air injector is being taken to correspond to the most upstream injector port 311, and the openings in the shroud are being defined as only those openings downstream of the air injector), the air injector being angled downward with respect to a print media moving through the print zone during printing (see figs. 4-7).
Fukui does not teach wherein the air injector configured to discharging air heated by a heater to dehumidify the air to a relative humidity of the air to 5% or less. Hattori teaches dehumidifying air in the print zone to a specific target range corresponding to relative humidity lower than a dew point of a printhead (Hattori, [0021], [0023], [0243]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to dehumidify the air blown by Fukui as disclosed by Hattori because doing so allow for preventing condensation on the printheads, which could result in faulty printing.
While Hattori does not expressly disclose dehumidifying the air to a relative humidity of 5% or less, Examiner maintains one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious given Hattori’s disclosure to operate in such a range. Further, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds an optimized relative humidity range of the air to be injected.
Fukui in view of Hattori does not expressly teach lowering a dew point in the print zone by discharging air of a temperature in a range of 40 degrees Celsius to 55 degrees Celsius. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds an optimized temperature range of the air to be injected. Further, the language “configured to lower a dew point” is being taken to be met simply by virtue of the injection of heated air.
Regarding claim 2, Fukui in view of Hattori teaches the assembly of Claim 1, wherein the air injector comprises:
a plenum (Fukui, see fig. 3, note fans 24 blowing air filling the entire area behind and above the shroud) spanning the full width of the print zone (Fukui, see fig. 3); and
an outlet (Fukui, fig. 7, item 317) from the plenum through which air may be discharged from the plenum during printing (Fukui, see fig. 7), the outlet spanning a full width of the print zone and oriented angled downward with respect to a print media moving through the print zone during printing (Fukui, see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Fukui in view of Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 2, wherein the outlet is oriented angled downward 30° to 60° with respect to the print media moving through the print zone during printing (Fukui, see fig. 7, see arrow).
Regarding claim 4, Fukui in view of Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 3. Fukui in view of Hattori does not teach wherein the outlet is located at least 4cm upstream from a nearest opening in the shroud. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds a minimum distance between the outlet and a particular opening, but this range of distances appears to have been discovered through routine experimentation and thus is not patentable.
Regarding claim 5, Fukui in view of Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 4. Fukui in view of Hattori does not teach wherein the outlet is configured to discharge 275kPa plenum air at 15m/s to 50m/s. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds a pressure and range of air velocities, but this range of velocity appears to have been discovered through routine experimentation and thus is not patentable.
Regarding claim 6, Fukui in view of Hattori teaches the assembly of claim 5. Fukui in view of Hattori does not teach wherein the outlet comprises multiple holes sized and shaped to discharge 275kPa plenum air at 15m/s to 50m/s. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. Here, all the claimed conditions are present in the prior art, and this claim simply adds a minimum distance between the outlet and a particular opening, but this range of distances appears to have been discovered through routine experimentation and thus is not patentable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hattori.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s argument regarding MPEP 2103(1)(C), Examiner maintains the interpretation of Fukui in light of the claimed limitations is proper. Examiner has not “evaluated elements in isolation” but rather mapped the claimed invention to the prior art to show that Fukui teaches the particular claimed structure. The claim as a whole has been evaluated. As an aside, it is not entirely clear to Examiner that this passage of the MPEP is applicable to the rejection above.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights