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
1. Applicant's arguments filed 11/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “With Awaji’s configuration, for a large-size medium S, the air 8 is blown off from inside to outside of the widthwise direction. This differs from the configuration claimed in claim 1, where the air flow is blown off diagonally downward from outside to inside of the widthwise direction of the sheet”. In response, the Examiner notes that Awaji teaches the air being blown off from inside to outside of the widthwise direction of the sheet (see fig.1,5) diagonally downward. The diagonally downward direction of the air flow (8) is affected by air blowing direction changing members (81,82) from air blow holes (6), as the Examiner believes is shown in figure 5. Furthermore, it is noted that the changing members are adjustable to change the direction of the air in accordance with the side of the sheet so as to direct the air flow at any angle (see at least ¶0109).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1,4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi JP 2017-129807 A in view of Awaji et al. PGPub 2023/0257223.
Tanida discloses, regarding claim 1, A sheet discharge device comprising:
a sheet discharge port which allows sheets to be discharged therethrough (adjacent discharge member 14; fig.2);
a discharge member (14) which is placed at the sheet discharge port and which conveys the sheets in a discharge direction;
a sheet discharge tray (15) which is placed on a downstream side of the sheet discharge port in the discharge direction and on which the sheets discharged through the sheet discharge port are stacked; and
a blower mechanism (16a) for blowing off an air flow to the sheets discharged through the sheet discharge port, wherein
the blower mechanism includes:
an air blow hole (162a,163a) for blowing off an air flow from upward against the sheets discharged through the sheet discharge port (fig.7); and
a blower device (161) coupled to the air blow hole to generate the air flow, and the air blow hole, being provided upward of the sheet discharge port (fig.7).
Keiichi does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of the claims.
Awaji teaches [regarding claim 1] the blower device and the air blow hole placed in at least one pair (91,92) or more on both sides of a center of the sheet in a widthwise direction perpendicular to the discharge direction, and the air flow derived from the air blow hole is blown off against the sheets diagonally downward from outside to inside of the widthwise direction, the air flow being blown against widthwise inner-side regions of the sheets inside of side edges of a maximum-size sheet discharged through the sheet discharge port (see at least fig.1,5; ¶0109).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blower device and the air blow hole placed in at least one pair or more on both sides of a center of the sheet in a widthwise direction perpendicular to the discharge direction, and the air flow derived from the air blow hole is blown off against the sheets diagonally downward from outside to inside of the widthwise direction, the air flow being blown against widthwise inner-side regions of the sheets inside of side edges of a maximum-size sheet discharged through the sheet discharge port, as taught by Awaji, in the device of Keiichi, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of changing positions where the air is applied according to the size of the medium and appropriately adjust the suppression effect of curl (¶0108).
Regarding claim 4, Keiichi, as modified above, does not expressly disclose the air blow hole placed in plural pairs on both sides of a center in the widthwise direction; however, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to place the air blow hole in plural pairs on both sides of a center in the widthwise direction since duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi JP 2017-129807 A in view of Awaji et al. PGPub 2023/0257223 further in view of Sakagami USP 11,447,357.
Keiichi as modified above discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶4 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Sakagami teaches the use of a controller for controlling the blower device, wherein the controller starts blowoff of the air flow by the blower device at a timing or later when a fore end of the sheet has come into contact with the sheet discharge tray or the sheets stacked on the sheet discharge tray (C5/L45-51).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a controller for controlling the blower device, wherein the controller starts blowoff of the air flow by the blower device at a timing or later when a fore end of the sheet has come into contact with the sheet discharge tray or the sheets stacked on the sheet discharge tray, as taught by Sakagami, in the device of Keiichi as modified above, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of unnecessarily blowing air on the discharged sheets since deformation of the sheets hardly occurs (C5/L56-57).
6. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi JP 2017-129807 A in view of Awaji et al. PGPub 2023/0257223 further in view of Hoshino et al. USP 9,561,927.
Keiichi discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶4 above), and further discloses [regarding claims 6,7] an image forming system comprising an image forming apparatus (13) for forming an image on a sheet (fig.1) and [regarding claim 8] an image forming part for forming an image on a sheet (fig.1), but does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of claims 5-9.
Hoshino teaches the use of [regarding claim 5] a sheet postprocessing device comprising a postprocessing part (S1) for performing specified postprocessing on a sheet, [regarding claims 6,8] the sheet postprocessing device according to claim 5 for performing specified postprocessing on the sheet subjected to image formation by the image forming apparatus (see at least C5/L64-C6/L12), [regarding claim 7] wherein the image forming apparatus is an inkjet recording apparatus for performing image recording by jetting out ink onto the sheet (C5/L40-41), and [regarding claim 9] wherein the image forming part performs image recording by jetting out ink onto the sheet (C5/L40-41).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a sheet postprocessing device comprising a postprocessing part for performing specified postprocessing on a sheet, the sheet postprocessing device according to claim 5 for performing specified postprocessing on the sheet subjected to image formation by the image forming apparatus, wherein the image forming apparatus is an inkjet recording apparatus for performing image recording by jetting out ink onto the sheet, and wherein the image forming part performs image recording by jetting out ink onto the sheet, as taught by Hoshino, in the device of Keiichi as modified above, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing image forming that produces high-quality photos and images, and for the purpose of providing desired finishing to the image-formed sheets.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Michael C McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 12/8/2025