Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/597,983

DRYING DEVICE, DRYING METHOD, AND MODELING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
KRASNOW, NICHOLAS R
Art Unit
1744
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ricoh Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
265 granted / 401 resolved
+1.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
453
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 401 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of invention and/or species, and corresponding claims is acknowledged (1-18 and 20). The election has been made without traverse. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In reference to claim 1, the term “dryer” is unsupported. The term is not defined in the specification and it is unclear what the structure of a “dryer” is. This is not a term of art. While claim 6 recites, in other words, a vacuum pump and solvent trap, it is not proper to import this structure into claim 1 at least because "[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Applicant should amend claim 1 to recite the structure intended by the term, as supported by the specification. Note: Claims 2-18 and 20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. 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 16 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In reference to claim 16, the term “flexible” in the limitation “flexible sheet” is an undefined relative term. All materials have flexibility. Thus, the claim is indefinite because it does not limit what types of sheets are or are not included with reasonable certainty. 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. 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. Claim 1-14, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hower (US 20210331246 A1) In reference to claim 1, Hower discloses a drying device, comprising: a housing section configured to house a powder bound object (“build box 105” [P0036]. See Figs 2-4 and descriptions thereof.), the housing including a bottom, the bottom including a periphery. and the bottom including an air vent inside of the periphery; and a dryer to dry the powder bound object housed in the housing (see annotated Fig 4, shown below) PNG media_image1.png 574 1093 media_image1.png Greyscale In reference to claim 2-3, 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See image above regarding the additional limitations of these claims. In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. The claim only recites intended use. In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Hower discloses “The vacuum system can generate an active air flow that draws air into the top surface and/or other surfaces of the build volume, while pulling solvent and/or water vapor out of the build volume through the permeable build platform and side walls. The system can include a liquid trap catch to catch liquid solvent and/or liquid water that condenses when the vapor encounters walls of the vacuum system.” (P0022). In reference to claim 7 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Hower discloses the “build platform 102 can move in a vertical direction (i.e., up and down) in the z-axis” (P0028). In reference to claim 8, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See image above regarding the additional limitations of these claims. In reference to claim 9, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Hower discloses “the build platform 102 can comprise vapor permeable faces of the build box 105 that can be implemented, for example, as a metal screen, a metal plate with patterns of drilled holes, a micro-structured porous membrane, and so on” (P0027). In reference to claim 10-13, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See quote in rejection of claim 9. The use of a micro-structured porous membrane and a metal plate with patterns of drilled holes meets the claim. Hower’s use of the term “comprises” supports the interpretation of these elements in combination. Additionally, it would be obvious to prevent powder from being sucked out of the housing at least because the illustration and text describe vapors being removed, not the powder (e.g., “does not cause any disruption or deformation of the 3D green parts within the build box 105” [P0037]). In reference to claim 14, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Hower shows the holes are staggered in Fig 6b. In reference to claim 16, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 10. See rejection of claim 10. A membrane meets the claim limitation of a flexible sheet. In reference to claim 17, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 10. The powder and part itself illustrated in Fig 2-5 of Hower can be the pressing materials as claimed. In reference to claim 20, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Hower meets the claim, see P0036. Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hower (US 20210331246 A1) and in view of Yang (US 20070256399 A1). In reference to claim 15, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. Hower does not show grooves and holes as claimed. In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, filters, Yang discloses a filter that would be suitable for Hower's use and is described as comprising grooves and holes as claimed (Fig 1-5 and descriptions thereof). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filters of Yang as suitable for the intended use of filtering in Hower's and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hower (US 20210331246 A1) and in view of Kikuchi (US 5626751 A). In reference to claim 17 and 18, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 10. Hower does not disclose the pressing member as claimed. In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, filtering (title), Kikuchi discloses an improved filter comprising a polycarbonate membrane interspersed between a metal perforated plate and a metal screen (Fig 6 and description thereof). The arrangement of a plate, then a membrane, then a screen meets the claim requirement of a pressing member on a porous member on vents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention by integrating the filter of Kikuchi as a separation means in the Hower device. Conclusion Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ThermoScientific’s Vacuum Desiccator (A product on sale before the present priority date1) discloses a vacuum desiccator (photo shown below) PNG media_image2.png 624 1018 media_image2.png Greyscale ThermoScientific further discloses that the desiccator is “is compatible with all solid desiccants … and can be used with or without a vacuum”. Either a desiccant or a vacuum meet the claim term of a “dryer”. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm. 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, Xiao Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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. /NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744 1 https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/5310-0250?SID=srch-srp-5310-0250see “compliance certificates” listed before the priority date
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 27, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600090
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599757
FABRICATION METHOD FOR COMPLEX, RE-ENTRANT 3D MICROSCALE STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594692
Absorbable Poly(p-dioxanone) Pellets made from Slow-to-Crystallize Ground Resin and its Fines
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589564
MOLD UNIT FOR MOLDING OPHTHALMIC LENSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589572
DEVICE FOR DETECTING PAPER SPLICE PART OF CARDBOARD SHEET, AND DEVICE FOR PRODUCING CARDBOARD SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+11.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 401 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month