Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/118,198

CONVEYING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 07, 2023
Examiner
ZIMMERMANN, JOHN P
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Riso Kagaku Corporation
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
598 granted / 724 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
76.8%
+36.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 724 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 May 2025 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kachi (US 2010/0079531 A1). Kachi teaches a conveying device which is disposed so as to face an image forming unit that performs image formation on a medium and which conveys the medium in a conveying direction while applying a suction force to sucking the medium (Kachi – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #22, #14, #PS, shown below), the conveying device comprising: a conveying surface having a suction region configured to apply the suction force to the medium (Kachi – Page 3, Paragraphs 45-46 and Figure 2, Reference #44, shown below), wherein the suction region includes a first suction region including a region that faces an entirety of the image forming unit along the conveying direction (Kachi – Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 5, Paragraphs 59 & 64 and Figure 2, Reference #54, shown below), and a second suction region located upstream of the first suction region in the conveying direction (Kachi – Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 5, Paragraphs 59 & 64 and Figure 2, Reference #52, shown below), the second suction region being configured to apply a stronger suction force to the medium than the first suction region. (Kachi – Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 5, Paragraphs 59 & 64 and Figures 1 & 2, Reference #52 & #54, shown below). PNG media_image1.png 686 450 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 254 430 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 2-3 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kachi (US 2010/0079531 A1) in view of KUBOTA et al. (CN 112693931 A). As related to dependent claim 2, Kachi teaches the conveying device, but does not specifically teach a conveyor belt including the conveying surface and configured to convey the medium. However, KUBOTA et al. teaches a conveying device which is disposed so as to face an image forming unit (KUBOTA et al. – Page 1 and Figure 1, Reference #3 & #2, shown below) and specifically teaches a conveyor belt including the conveying surface and configured to convey the medium and having a plurality of belt holes in the conveying surface (KUBOTA et al. – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #21, #21b, #P, #21a, shown below), a support member supporting the conveyor belt on a surface thereof opposite to the conveying surface of the conveyor belt (KUBOTA et al. – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #26, shown below), and a suction fan configured to suction air through the plurality of belt holes (KUBOTA et al. – Figure 1, Reference #29, shown below) so as to form the suction region in the conveying surface, wherein the support member includes a plurality of recesses arranged in each of the conveying direction and a width direction of the medium that is orthogonal to the conveying direction (KUBOTA et al. – Figure 2, Reference #31, shown below), the plurality of recesses being positioned to communicate with the belt holes, a plurality of first suction holes connected to a first subset of the plurality of recesses, the plurality of first suction holes forming the first suction region by suctioning air from the first subset of the plurality of recesses, and a plurality of second suction holes connected to a second subset of the plurality of recesses different from the first subset of the plurality of recesses, and having a wider suction path than the plurality of first suction holes, the plurality of second suction holes forming the second suction region by suctioning air from the second subset of the plurality of recesses (KUBOTA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 4-5; Page 2, Paragraphs 1-4; Page 3, Paragraphs 4-11; Page 4; and Figures 1-4 & 8, shown below). PNG media_image3.png 294 462 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 420 452 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 292 442 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 286 464 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 406 382 media_image7.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the conveying device of Kachi with the conveying device of KUBOTA et al. having a conveyor belt in an effort to provide further control of the suction force distribution of Kachi (Kachi – Page 1, Paragraph 10 – Page 2, Paragraph 22; Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 6, Paragraph 68) while reducing possible damage to the inkjet head and reducing warpage of a print sheet (KUBOTA et al. – Page 2, Paragraphs 1-4). As related to further dependent claim 3, the combination of Kachi and KUBOTA et al. remains as applied above and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the suction paths of the various suction holes as one of the adjustable settings to get the desired results of Kachi (Kachi – Page 1, Paragraph 10 – Page 2, Paragraph 22; Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 6, Paragraph 68) and therefore the combination teaches the plurality of first suction holes have a narrow suction path than the belt holes, and the plurality of second suction holes have a wider suction path than the belt holes (KUBOTA et al. – Page 1, Paragraphs 4-5; Page 2, Paragraphs 1-4; Page 3, Paragraphs 4-11; Page 4; and Figures 1-4 & 8, shown above). As related to dependent claim 5, the combination of Kachi and KUBOTA et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the first suction region is always positioned to face the entirety of the image forming unit along the conveying direction (Kachi – Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 5, Paragraphs 59 & 64 and Figure 2, Reference #54, shown above) during the movement of the conveying surface in the conveying direction (KUBOTA et al. – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #21, #21b, #P, #21a, shown above). As related to dependent claim 6, the combination of Kachi and KUBOTA et al. remains for the reasons indicated above and continues to teach the first and second suction regions are stationary (Kachi – Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 5, Paragraphs 59 & 64 and Figure 2, Reference #54 & #52, shown above) during the movement of the conveying surface in the conveying direction (KUBOTA et al. – Figures 1 & 2, Reference #21, #21b, #P, #21a, shown above). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kachi (US 2010/0079531 A1) in view of YOKOYAMA et al. (WO 2018/056245 A1). Kachi does not specifically teach the lengths of the suction regions in the conveying direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify the lengths of the suction regions as one of the variations to get the desired results of Kachi (Kachi – Page 1, Paragraph 10 – Page 2, Paragraph 22; Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 6, Paragraph 68). Meanwhile, YOKOYAMA teaches a conveying device having a plurality of suction regions including a first suction region that includes a region that faces an entirety of the image forming unit and a second suction region located upstream of the first suction region in the conveying direction (YOKOYAMA – Figures 1, 4A, & 6A, shown below) and specifically teaches the second suction region is less than half a length of the first suction region in the conveying direction (YOKOYAMA – Figure 1 & 4A, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of filing to modify Kachi with YOKOYAMA in an effort to provide further control of the suction force distribution and reliably attaching a recording medium (Kachi – Page 1, Paragraph 10 – Page 2, Paragraph 22; Page 4, Paragraph 48; Page 6, Paragraph 68 and YOKOYAMA - Abstract). PNG media_image8.png 391 685 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 402 639 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 368 488 media_image10.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kachi (US 2010/0238250 A1) teaches a conveying device wherein the upstream suction section is narrower in the conveyance direction than the downstream suction section. Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular Figures & Reference Numbers, Columns, Paragraphs and Line Numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN P ZIMMERMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3049. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1730 EST. 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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. /John P Zimmermann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 05, 2025
Interview Requested
Feb 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 07, 2025
Response Filed
May 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 05, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 13, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 13, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 08, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590216
WATER-BASED INK AND INK SET INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589596
INKJET PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583247
DRYING METHOD, DRYING DEVICE, AND PRINTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12552954
Ink Set and Inkjet Printing Methods
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552183
INKJET PRINTER WITH SUBSTRATE HEIGHT POSITION CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 724 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month