DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites a contact angle of 45 degrees or more, but the figures of the present application appear to show the liquid being applied vertically to a horizontal surface, and it is unclear how this can be claimed to be 45 degrees or more. Clarification 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, 4, 6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (5,153,618) in view of Veres et al. (2014/0013972).
Regarding claim 1, Frank teaches an image forming apparatus (fig. 1, items 14, 16, 20, 22, 34) comprising:
a conductive medium (fig. 1, item 14/16);
an applying device (fig. 1, item 20) to apply conductive liquid to a surface of the conductive medium to form an invisible image (col. 10, lines 34-38, electrostatic latent image); and
a developing device (fig. 1, item 22) to adhere charged particles to the invisible image formed on the surface of the conductive medium to form a visible image (col. 10, lines 39-42), the developing device including a developing roller (col. 6, lines 59-60. col. 10, line 39, fig. 1, see roller of developing station 22) facing the conductive medium (see fig. 1), the developing roller configured to rotate in a specified direction (see fig. 1) while being applied with a specific voltage (fig. 1, item 34, bias voltage).
Frank does not expressly teach a gap. Veres teaches this (Veres, fig. 2, Note gape between developing roller 30 and conductive medium 22/35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the relative positioning of the conductive medium and developing roller disclosed by Veres in the device disclosed by Frank because doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Frank does not do into detail about the application of the developer to its conductive medium, it would have been obvious to look to Veres for such a teaching.
Regarding claim 4, Frank in view of Veres teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the conductive medium is a rotator (Frank, fig. 1, see drum 14) to rotate in a specified rotational direction (Frank, fig. 1, see arrow), and wherein the image forming apparatus further comprises:
a transfer device (Frank, fig. 1, item 26) facing or contacting the conductive medium at a transfer position (Frank, fig. 1, position at which image is transferred from drum to medium) downstream from the developing device in the rotational direction, the transfer device to transfer the visible image formed on the surface of the conductive medium to a transfer target object conveyed to the transfer position (Frank, see fig. 1), and
a drying device (Frank, fig. 1, item 33) facing or contacting the conductive medium downstream from the transfer device in the rotational direction and upstream from the applying device in the rotational direction, the drying device to dry the surface of the conductive medium (Frank, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Frank in view of Veres teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the conductive medium is detachably attached to a body of the image forming apparatus (Frank, see fig. 1, Note that any shown element is attachable and detachable to and from the body).
Regarding claim 12, Frank in view of Veres teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image forming apparatus does not include a charging device and an exposure device (see claim 1 rejection, note that, as defined, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 13, Frank in view of Veres teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the developing device is configured to store a plurality of charged particles and adhere the charged particles, of the plurality of charges particles stored in the developing device, to the invisible image formed on the surface of the conductive medium (Veres, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Frank in view of Veres teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, note that the applying device of the prior art is positioned with respect to the conductive medium exactly as is illustrated in the Figures of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Veres as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stowe et al. (2009/0322845).
Regarding claim 2, Frank in view of Veres teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the conductive medium includes a conductive layer and an insulating layer laminated on an outer surface of the conductive layer (col. 10, lines 27-31, conductive drum, i.e., conductive layer, and dielectric imaging layer 16, i.e., insulating layer). Frank in view of Veres does not teach wherein the conductive medium is absorptive of the conductive liquid. Stowe teaches a belt with an insulating layer made of absorbent fibers (Stowe, [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to compose the insulating layer disclosed by Frank in view of Veres with absorbent fibers, as disclosed by Stowe, because doing so would amount to a simple substation of one known belt composition for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Frank in view of Veres and Stowe teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the conductive layer is electrically grounded (Frank, fig. 2, note grounded conductive layer 67).
wherein the insulating layer includes densely packed bristles having an insulating property or a stack of fibers having an insulating property (Stowe, [0052]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of Veres as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (6,141,518).
Regarding claim 5, Frank in view of Veres teaches an image forming apparatus according to claim 4. Frank in view of Veres does not teach wherein the drying device includes: an absorber that contacts the conductive medium to absorb the conductive liquid adhering to the surface of the conductive medium; and a volatilization accelerator that volatilizes the conductive liquid absorbed by the absorber. Shin teaches this (Shin, col. 2, lines 20-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a multi-tool drying device, such as the absorbent roller, volatile-evaporating heater and metering blade disclosed by Shin, instead of just a cleaning blade of the type disclosed by Frank in view of Veres because doing so would allow for more thorough drying of the conductive medium.
Conclusion
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.
Prosecution Insights