DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/17/2025. Applicant argues that Examiner has not established that a search burden would result from search of each of the inventions. Examiner maintains such a burden would result. The methods of claims 17 and 20 could be performed by any number of cooling rollers. The Requirement is maintained.
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 6 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. It is unclear what this claim is intended to mean. It would seem that each pipe has a first portion and a second portion, and thus to state that the plurality has a first portion and a second portion is inaccurate because there are a plurality of first portions and a plurality of second portions. Further, it is not understood what is mean by the angle limitation. Clarification is required.
Because claims 7-9 depend from claim 6, they are also rejected on this basis.
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 wherein a single drum includes two drums. It does not seem this is possible. Correction is required.
Because claim 15 depends from claim 14, it is also rejected on this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsunashima et al. (6,221,301).
Regarding claim 1, Tsunashima teaches a cooling device for cooling sheets comprising:
a drum (fig. 10, note drum) mounted for rotation about a central axis (fig. 10, axis through 10, 9), the drum including a cylindrical wall (fig. 10, item 13/14) which defines an outer surface and an inner surface (see fig. 10);
a plurality of heat pipes (fig.10, items 21) extending into an interior of the drum from the inner surface of the cylinder wall (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of heat pipes has a length L and an interior diameter D, a ratio of L:D being at least 3:1 (see fig. 10, Note pipes are more than three times longer than they are wide).
Regarding claim 6, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of heat pipes includes a first portion, adjacent to the cylinder wall, and a second portion, extending from the first portion, exterior surfaces of the first and second portions defining an angle of from 110° to 170° therebetween (see fig. 10, Note that each pipe has first and second portions with exterior surfaces “defining an angle” in the claimed range. It would seem that each pipe has a first portion and a second portion, and thus to state that the plurality has a first portion and a second portion is inaccurate because there are a plurality of first portions and a plurality of second portions).
Regarding claim 7, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 6, wherein the first and second portions of each of the plurality of heat pipes together define a void, the working fluid traveling through the void towards a cooler end of the heat pipe when the working fluid evaporates (see fig. 10, Note that the working fluid can travel toward the axis or toward the inner surface of the cylinder wall depending on the rotational position of the drum, and thus regardless of whether the center or outside of the drum is cooler, some water will always be travelling toward a cooler side of its pipe).
Regarding claim 8, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 6, wherein a length L1 of the first portion of each of the plurality of heat pipes is greater than a length L2 of the second portion of each of the plurality of heat pipes (see fig. 10, Note that the first portion is being defined as a portion with a length L1 that is greater than a second portion with a length L2)
Regarding claim 9, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 6, wherein the inner surface of the cylinder wall defines a plurality of grooves, each groove receiving the first portion of at least one of the plurality of heat pipes (see fig. 10, Note that inner wall of 13 has grooves into which pipes 21 are fitted).
Regarding claim 10, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of heat pipes includes a plurality of protrusions which provide an increased exterior surface area of the heat pipe, and optionally, wherein each of the plurality protrusions defines an interior which is accessible to a working fluid within the heat pipe (see fig. 10, Note that the ends of heat pipes 21 protruding into wall 13 are being taken to be the claimed protrusions. Note that they increase the exterior surface by lengthening the heat pipes).
Regarding claim 11, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 1, the drum further comprising an inlet (fig. 10, item 9) at a first end of the drum, through which cooling fluid enters the drum interior, and an outlet (fig. 10, item 10) at a second end of the drum, through which cooling fluid leaves the drum interior (see fig. 10).
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunashima in view of Ryan et al. (2025/0256315)
Regarding claim 2, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of heat pipes includes a shell (fig. 10, note each pipe has a shell) and a working fluid (col. 5, line 66) which is enclosed within the shell. Tsunashima does not teach wherein each of the plurality of heat pipes includes a wicking material. Ryan teaches a cylindrical heat exchanging unit with a wicking material inside so as to circulate coolant within the cylindrical heat exchanging unit (Ryan, [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a wicking material, as disclosed by Ryan, to the heat pipes disclosed by Tsunashima because doing so would facilitate even circulation of the working fluid within the heat pipes.
Regarding claim 3, Tsunashima in view of Ryan teaches the cooling device of claim 2, wherein the working fluid comprises water (Tsunashima, col. 5, line 66).
Regarding claim 4, Tsunashima in view of Ryan teaches the cooling device of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of heat pipes defines a void (see fig. 10, note that all pipes have a void running through them), the working fluid traveling through the void towards a cooler end of the heat pipe when the working fluid evaporates (see fig. 10, Note that the working fluid can travel toward the axis or toward the inner surface of the cylinder wall depending on the rotational position of the drum, and thus regardless of whether the center or outside of the drum is cooler, some water will always be travelling toward a cooler side of its pipe).
Claim(s) 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Tsunashima view of Facchini et al. (2015/0220052)
Regarding claim 12, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 1. Tsunashima does not teach a biasing mechanism for biasing the sheets into contact with the outer surface of the cylindrical wall. Facchini teaches this (Facchini, fig. 3, Note belt as biasing member). 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 cooling roller of Tsunashima as both rollers disclosed by Facchini and using a belt around those two rollers because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Tsunashima in view of Facchini teaches the cooling device of claim 12, wherein the biasing mechanism comprises at least one of rollers and a continuous belt (Facchini, see fig. 3). 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 biasing mechanism of Faccini with the device of Tsunashima because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Tsunashima teaches the cooling device of claim 1. Tsunashima does not teach wherein the drum includes first and second counter-rotating drums. Facchini teaches this (Facchini, fig. 3, Note belt as biasing member). 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 cooling roller of Tsunashima as both rollers disclosed by Facchini and using a belt around those two rollers because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Tsunashima in view of Facchini teaches the cooling device of claim 14, wherein each of the first and second counter-rotating drums contains at least 12 heat pipes (Tsunashima, see fig. 10, Note that there are six supply pipes and six return pipes).
Regarding claim 16, Tsunashima in view of Facchini teaches the printing device comprising:
the cooling device of claim 1;
a first inkjet marking device (Facchini, [0033]);
a dryer which heats sheets that have been printed with the inkjet marking device (Facchini, [0033]),
the cooling device receiving heated sheets from the dryer (Facchini, fig. 6, [0033]); and
a paper path which transports sheets from the cooling device to one of the first inkjet marking device and a second inkjet marking device (Facchini, see fig. 6, Note paper travelling through paper path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a paper path, as disclosed by Facchini, to the device disclosed by Tsunashima because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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, 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 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853