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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda (US 2019/0001707 A1) in view of Shiohara (US 2010/0141725 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoda teaches a printing apparatus comprising: a conveying unit that conveys a medium (fig. 1, transport mechanism 14, medium 99, paragraph [0011]); a printing unit that ejects ink onto an image forming surface of the medium conveyed by the conveying unit (fig. 1, printing mechanism 20, paragraph [0012]); and a drying unit that is disposed downstream of the printing unit in a conveying direction of the medium and dries the ink ejected from the printing unit onto the image forming surface, the drying unit extending in a width direction transverse to the conveying direction of the medium with a first width end and a second width end, wherein the drying unit includes a support portion that supports the medium, an airflow generating unit that generates an airflow, a blowout port that is disposed at a position facing the image forming surface of the medium conveyed by the conveying unit and blows out the airflow, an airflow direction determination portion, wherein the blowout port faces the image forming surface of the medium conveyed by the conveying unit in an opposing direction (fig. 1, support surface 13, drying apparatus 30, air sending path 36, air outlet port 36b, blower 37, paragraphs [0015]-[0017]).
Yoda fails to teach or fairly suggest an airflow direction determining portion that directs the airflow in a plurality of air blowing directions, and the airflow direction determining portion comprising louvers to direct the airflow in a first air blowing direction of the plurality of air blowing directions is inclined in the width direction with respect to the opposing direction and a second air blowing direction of the plurality of air blowing directions is perpendicular to one of the first width end and the second width end.
However, Shiohara teaches a printing apparatus comprising a drying unit, wherein the drying unit comprises an airflow direction determining portion that directs the airflow in a plurality of air blowing directions, and the airflow direction determining portion comprising louvers to direct the airflow in a first air blowing direction of the plurality of air blowing directions is inclined in the width direction with respect to the opposing direction and a second air blowing direction of the plurality of air blowing directions is perpendicular to one of the first width end and the second width end. (figs. 2-3, case 13, louvers 14a-b, deflectors 15, exhaust ports 17b, ¶[0035]-[0036], [0042]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the airflow direction determining portion of Shiohara into the drying unit of Yoda in order to prevent lifting and curling of the printing medium.
See the “Response to Arguments” section below for further details regarding the Examiner’s position regarding the mapping of Shiohara to the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Yoda as modified by Shiohara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Yoda further teaches the airflow generating unit includes a plurality of fans arranged in a direction intersecting the conveying direction (fig. 2, fans 38, paragraphs [0020]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoda as modified by Shiohara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 2. Yoda further teaches the blowout port and the airflow direction determining portion are provided for each of the plurality of fans (figs. 1-2, air sending path 36, air outlet port 36b, fans 38, paragraphs [0020]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoda as modified by Shiohara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Yoda further teaches the air blowing direction is inclined from upstream to downstream in the conveying direction when viewed from the opposing direction (fig. 1, airflow-indicating arrow near air outlet port 36b, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, based on the disclosure and the other claim language of claims 1 and 6, it is assumed that the “first medium” and “second medium” are not intended to be positive recitations of the claim, therefore, the Examiner is interpreting this language such that it amounts to functional language describing the operation of the recorder. MPEP 2114(II) states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Yoda teaches a transport mechanism (fig. 1, transport mechanism 14, transport rollers 15, paragraph [0011]) capable of conveying media of various widths, therefore, the printing apparatus of Yoda as modified by Shiohara would be capable of operating according to the language of the claim.
Further, Shiohara teaches an airflow direction determining portion that produces an air blowing direction that is inclined from one side to an other side in the width direction when viewed from the conveying direction (fig. 3, case 13, louvers 14b, exhaust ports 17b, ¶[0042]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Yoda as modified by Shiohara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1. Yoda further teaches the printing apparatus comprising an airflow heating unit that heats the airflow (fig. 1, heating mechanism 31, paragraph [0013]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda as modified by Shiohara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ido (US 2020/0164670 A1).
Yoda as modified by Shiohara teaches the printing apparatus according to claim 1, however Yoda as modified by Shiohara fails to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus further comprising a medium heating unit that heats the medium from a side opposite to the image forming surface.
Ido teaches a printing apparatus further comprising a medium heating unit that heats the medium from a side opposite to the image forming surface (fig. 5, support member 28, second heater 45, paragraphs [0082]-[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the medium heating unit of Ido into the printing apparatus of Yoda in order to improve the drying rate and drying uniformity of the medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are hereby allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent claim 9 comprises the recitations of previously recited claims 1-5, as detailed in Applicant’s Remarks, dated March 18, 2026. The Final Rejection dated January 5, 2026 previously indicated dependent claim 5 to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reasoning provided in the Final Rejection is provided herein.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the printing apparatus of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, the airflow direction determining portion associated with one of the plurality of fans is located more upstream in the first air blowing direction and more upstream in the conveying direction than another airflow direction determining portion associated with another one of the plurality of fans.
Dependent claims 10, 11, 12, and 13 depend on claim 9, and claims 10, 11, 12, and 13 duplicate the recitations of dependent claims 4, 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Shiohara fails to teach the louvers 14B directing the airflow perpendicularly. Although, the louvers 14B of the embodiment depicted in Fig. 3 of Shiohara may not clearly depict the air direction being perpendicular at a specific point, the Examiner invites attention to the embodiment depicted in Fig. 2 of Shiohara.
To provide greater clarity of the Examiner’s position regarding the teachings of Shiohara regarding “a second air blowing direction of the plurality of air blowing directions is perpendicular to one of the first width end and the second width end,” as recited in claim 1, attention is drawn to Fig. 2 of Shiohara, an annotated copy of which is provided herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
388
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The direction of air flow, shown in fig. 2, is depicted as being conducted by louvers 14A in a downward direction, perpendicular to the surface of the medium at both end portions of the medium. Additionally, the deflectors 15, which are themselves louvers, are depicted as directing air in a direction inclined in the width direction, the width direction being understood by the Examiner to be a direction that runs parallel to the long surface of the medium P. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that these teachings, further in light of the teachings of Shiohara in fig. 3, meet the language of the claim when taken in combination with Yoda.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watanabe et al. (WO 2022025115 A1) teaches a heating device comprising a blower and louvers to direct airflow in a downstream direction with respect to a medium conveyance direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RAY KNIEF whose telephone number is (703)756-5733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM - 5 PM 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 5712722149. 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.
/TRK/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights