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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 1, 2024 and July 24, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: elements 3200 and 3300 from figure 1, and elements 301, 302, and 303 from figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 1, ln. 17 of the specification recites, “…a second blowing unit disposed adjacent to downstream of the first blowing unit with respect to a sheet conveyance direction….” This passage includes a grammatical omission that renders unclear the positional relationship between the second blowing unit and first blowing unit. An example correction is the following: “…a second blowing unit disposed adjacent to and downstream of the first blowing unit with respect to a sheet conveyance direction….”
Pg. 13, ln. 2 of the specification recites, “…the pitch means an interval between a center of the hole and a center of the hole.” The definition of “pitch” provided in this recitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what two holes the interval is defined to span or measure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 9, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, ln. 8 of the claim recites, “…a second blowing unit disposed adjacent to downstream of the first blowing unit (emphasis added).” This recitation appears to be missing a word or otherwise contains a grammatical error. An example correction is provided herein: “a second blowing unit disposed adjacent to and downstream of the first blowing unit….”
Additionally, ln. 12 of claim 1 recites, “…wherein when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes (emphasis added).” This recitation appears to be missing a word or otherwise contains a grammatical error. An example correction is provided herein: “…wherein when a pitch between two of the plurality of the first blowout holes….”
Regarding claim 8, ln. 2 recites, “…a second blowing unit disposed adjacent to downstream of the first blowing unit (emphasis added).” This recitation appears to be missing a word or otherwise contains a grammatical error. An example correction is provided herein: “a second blowing unit disposed adjacent to and downstream of the first blowing unit….”
Regarding claim 9, ln. 18 of the claim recites, “a second blowing disposed adjacent to downstream of the first blowing unit (emphasis added).” This recitation appears to be missing words or otherwise contains a grammatical error. An example correction is provided herein: “a second blowing unit disposed adjacent to and downstream of the first blowing unit….”
Regarding claim 10, ln. 17 of the claim recites, “where when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes (emphasis added).” This recitation appears to be missing a word or otherwise contains a grammatical error. An example correction is provided herein: “…wherein when a pitch between two of the plurality of the first blowout holes….”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 12 of the claim recites, “…wherein when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes….” This recitation renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear for the following reasons. First, the recitation or “between of” is confusing grammar. Second, the recitation of “when” indicates a condition being claimed, but no resulting effect is recited to explain what happens when the condition is present or otherwise met. Third, the recitation of “when” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An example correction would be to remove the following passage from the claim, “when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes.”
Regarding claim 9, line 22 of the claim recites, “wherein when a line in which the plurality of the second blowing holes are aligned in a predetermined direction along the sheet conveyance direction is defined in a first line and a line in which the plurality of the second blowing holes are aligned in the predetermined direction and adjacent to the first line is defined as a second line.” First, the recitation of “when” indicates a condition being claimed, but no resulting effect is recited to explain what happens when the condition is present or otherwise met. Second, the recitation of “when” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An example correction would be to remove “when” from the claim.
Additionally, claim 9 recites the limitation "the second blowing holes" in lines 22 and 24 on page 4 of the claims. Claim 9 further recites the limitation “the first blowing holes” in lines 1 and 3 on page 5 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of compact examination, recitations of “blowing holes” are being interpreted by the examiner to be the same as the previously recited “blowout holes” of the claim.
Regarding claim 10, line 17 of the claim recites, “…wherein when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes….” This recitation renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear for the following reasons. First, the recitation or “between of” is confusing grammar. Second, the recitation of “when” indicates a condition being claimed, but no resulting effect is recited to explain what happens when the condition is present or otherwise met. Third, the recitation of “when” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An example correction would be to remove the following passage from the claim, “when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is hereby allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the drying device of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, an average length of a pitch of the plurality of the first blowout holes in the sheet conveyance direction is equal to or more than a pitch between a downstreammost hole located in the downstreammost of the plurality of the first blowout holes and an upstreammost hole located in the upstreammost of the plurality of the second blowout holes with respect to the sheet conveyance direction.
Regarding independent claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the drying device of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes, a first hole and a second hole which is located downstream of the first hole in the sheet conveyance direction and of which a distance to the first hole with respect to the sheet conveyance direction is shortest is defined as a first pitch, a second pitch which is a pitch between a downstreammost hole located in the downstreammost of the plurality of the first blowout holes and an upstreammost hole located in the upstreammost of the plurality of the second blowout holes with respect to the sheet conveyance direction is within a range of ± 40% of the first pitch.
Additionally, claims 1, 9, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the drying device of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes, a first hole and a second hole which is located downstream of the first hole in the sheet conveyance direction and of which a distance to the first hole with respect to the sheet conveyance direction is shortest is defined as a first pitch, a second pitch which is a pitch between a downstreammost hole located in the downstreammost of the plurality of the first blowout holes and an upstreammost hole located in the upstreammost of the plurality of the second blowout holes with respect to the sheet conveyance direction is equal to or less than the first pitch.
Regarding independent claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the drying device of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, when a line in which the plurality of the second blowing holes are aligned in a predetermined direction along the sheet conveyance direction is defined in a first line and a line in which the plurality of the second blowing holes are aligned in the predetermined direction and adjacent to the first line is defined as a second line, an upstreammost hole located in the upstreammost of the plurality of the second blowout holes is positioned between the first line and the second line, and wherein when a third line in which the plurality of the first blowing holes are aligned in the predetermined direction is position between the first line and the second line, and lines in which the plurality of the first blowing holes are aligned in the predetermined direction and adjacent to the third line are defined as a fourth line and a fifth line, the upstreammost hole is positioned between the fourth line and the fifth line.
Regarding independent claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the drying device of the claim, particularly including and in combination with, when a pitch between of the plurality of the first blowout holes, a first hole and a second hole which is located downstream of the first hole in the sheet conveyance direction and of which a distance to the first hole with respect to the sheet conveyance direction is shortest is defined as a first pitch, a second pitch which is a pitch between a downstreammost hole located in the downstreammost of the plurality of the first blowout holes and an upstreammost hole located in the upstreammost of the plurality of the second blowout holes with respect to the sheet conveyance direction is within a range of ± 40% of the first pitch.
Claims 2-7 are 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, and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) of the base claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.”
The closest art of record, Dollevoet et al. (US 2021/0146680 A1), teaches a drying device configured to dry wet substrates, wherein the drying device comprises a first blowing unit and a second blowing unit (figs. 1-4), but fails to teach or fairly suggest the drying units comprising a relative nozzle pitch between the nozzles of the units that is shorter in length compared to a nozzle pitch of nozzles within each unit. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, the structure of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heinze (US 2021/0001620 A1) teaches a drier for a printing web comprising many blowout nozzles. Yamada et al. (US 2022/0035280 A1) teaches a heating unit for a transport material comprising several air nozzle segments. Murashima et al. (US 2022/0281237 A1) teaches a drying device comprising a first and second blowing unit, each comprising an array of air nozzles.
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