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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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 and 11 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (US 9,441,362) and further in view of Zhang (CN 106813525A).
With regard to claim 1, Oppenheimer discloses an inkjet printer (110) comprising at least one baffle member (150) [plate; Col. 2; line 12-15; Fig.2] defining a surface that is positioned opposite a portion of a media path [Col. 2; lines 10-12] through the inkjet printer, and
a mesh (160) [Col. 2; lines 29-35].
Oppenheimer does not disclose the baffle member surface defining at least one concave recess; and the mesh disposed over the at least one concave recess between the at least one concave recess and the media path.
However, Zhang teaches a plate surface (1) defining at least one concave recess [Para. 0015; Fig. 1] and a mesh (4) disposed over that at least one concave recess.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the plate of Oppenheimer with at least one concave recessed covered by a mesh for the purpose of supporting return water structures at the mounting holes, which often affects some heat transfer performance.
Modifying the plate of Oppenheimer with at least one concave recess and a mesh disposed over that at least one concave recess places the mesh between the at least one concave recess and the media path and therefore satisfies the claim.
With regard to claim 11, Oppenheimer discloses a baffle (140) [Col. 2; lines 10-12] for an inkjet printer (110) comprising:
at least one baffle member (150) [plate; Col. 2; lines 12-15] having a first end and a second end [Figs. 1, 2, 4] and a surface extending from the first end to the second end [Figs. 1, 2, 4], and
a mesh (160).
Oppenheimer does not disclose the surface defining at least one concave recess configured to provide a nucleation site; and a mesh disposed over the at least one concave recess in the at least one baffle member and configured to obstruct condensate from dropping out of the nucleation site.
However, Zhang teaches a plate surface (1) defining at least one concave recess [Para. 0015; Fig. 1] providing a nucleation site [cavity support fluid condensed into a liquid state; Para. 0071] and a mesh (4) disposed over that at least one concave recess in the at least one baffle member [Para. 0041; Fig. 1] and configured to obstruct condensate from dropping out of the nucleation site.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the plate of Oppenheimer with at least one concave recessed covered by a mesh for the purpose of supporting return water structures at the mounting holes, which often affects some heat transfer performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are 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.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claims 2-10 is the inclusion of the limitations of at least one concave recess is coated with a material having a specific heat capacity that is greater than a specific heat capacity of a metal used to form the at least one baffle member. It is this limitation(s) found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claims 12-20 is the inclusion of the limitations of at least one concave recess is coated with a material having a specific heat capacity that is greater than a specific heat capacity of a metal used to form the at least one baffle member. It is this limitation(s) found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
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 TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached at 571-272-5960. 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.
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/TRACEY M MCMILLION/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights