DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to Applicant's arguments dated 01/21/2026. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending in the application. Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 has/have been amended. Claim(s) 9 and 10 has/have been added.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in 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 the responses, to fully consider the references in 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. In re Tanaka et aI., 193 USPQ 139, (CCPA) 1977.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220118762 to Yoda (hereinafter “Yoda”).
With respect to claim 1, Yoda discloses A printing apparatus (droplet discharging device 11 FIG. 1) comprising: a medium support portion configured to support a medium (medium support unit 30 FIG. 1); an ink ejecting portion configured to perform printing by ejecting an ink including a solvent from a nozzle to a printing region of the medium supported by the medium support portion (printing unit 50 FIG. 1); a housing that contains the ink ejecting portion (housing 12 FIG. 1); a conveyance portion configured to convey the medium into the housing at a medium entry portion and out of the housing at a medium exit portion (13, 14, 40 FIG. 1), and a dry air blowing portion configured to blow dry air toward the printing region (80 FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 6, Yoda discloses further comprising a dry air generation portion configured to generate the dry air, wherein the dry air blowing portion includes a flow path having one end coupled to the dry air generation portion and a dry air blowing nozzle coupled to the other end of the flow path (80 FIG.s 1).
With respect to claim 8, Yoda discloses a printing system comprising: a printing apparatus including a medium support portion configured to support a medium (droplet discharging device 11 FIG. 1, medium support unit 30 FIG. 1), an ink ejecting portion configured to perform printing by ejecting an ink including a solvent from a nozzle to a printing region of the medium supported by the medium support portion (printing unit 50 FIG. 1), a housing that contains the ink ejecting portion; a conveyance portion configured to convey the medium into the housing at a medium entry portion and out of the housing at a medium exit portion (13, 14, 40 FIG. 1), and the printing system further comprising a dry air blowing portion configured to blow dry air toward the printing region (80 FIG. 1); and a dry air generation device configured to generate the dry air, wherein the dry air blowing portion includes a flow path having one end coupled to the dry air generation device and a dry air blowing nozzle coupled to the other end of the flow path (80 FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220118762 to Yoda (hereinafter “Yoda”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210078256 to Anegawa (hereinafter “Anegawa”).
With respect to claim 5, Yoda discloses comprising a carriage equipped with the liquid ejecting portion and configured to move in a scanning direction within the housing ([0021] carriage moves)
However, Yoda fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the dry air blowing portion is provided on the carriage.
Anegawa discloses:
wherein the dry air blowing portion is provided on the carriage(140 FIG.s 1-3).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the blowing portion to the carriage as disclosed by Anegawa with the method/apparatus of Yoda. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the control of the air. (FIG. 1-3 of Anegawa).
With respect to claim 7, Yoda in view of Anegawa discloses wherein the dry air blowing portion includes a dry air heating portion configured to heat the dry air (warm air generating unit 110, 140 FIG.s 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9 and 10 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. The primary reason for allowance for claim 2 is that applicant's claimed invention includes the printing apparatus wherein the dry air blowing portion is configured to blow the dry air into the housing through the medium exit portion toward the printing region. It is this limitation, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
1. The objections dated 10/22/2026 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
2. Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee 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 Bradley W Thies whose telephone number is (571)270-5667. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 am -6:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADLEY W THIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853