DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “portion” in all claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (2014/0321878) in view of Bildstein et al. (2012/0285708) and Kamoda et al. (2014/0205308).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches an image forming apparatus, comprising:
an image forming portion (fig. 3, item 22) which discharges ink onto a recording medium to form an image ([0035]);
a conveying belt (fig. 1, item 14/11/12) including a plurality of rollers (fig. 1, items 11, 12) and an endless belt (fig. 1, item 14) stretched over the plurality of rollers and including a plurality of through holes ([0027]) formed therein, and configured to convey the recording medium on which the image has been formed (see fig. 1), on an upper surface of the belt by rotation of the plurality of rollers and the belt (see fig. 1);
a suction fan (fig. 3, item 32) arranged inside the belt and configured to such the recording medium to the upper surface of the belt being driven ([0032]);
an exhaust air duct (fig. 3, item 33) from which gas is exhausted ([0027]); and
a dust removal filter (fig. 3, item 34) arranged inside the air duct and configured to remove dust generated from the recording medium ([0028]),
the exhaust air duct is arranged such than an inlet from which the gas is sucked in is below the suction fan and the belt (see fig. 3),
the suction fan causes an airflow that flows downwardly from above and flows into the inlet of the exhaust air duct (see fig. 3).
Kondo does not teach a heat source portion or a detection portion.
Bildstein teaches a heat source portion (Bildstein, fig. 2, item 202) which heats the ink on the recording medium (Bildstein, [0020]) and a detection portion (Bildstein, fig. item 418) which detects smoke or gas generated at a time of fire (Bildstein, [0022]). 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 heat source and detection portion disclosed by Bildstein to the device disclosed by Kondo because doing so would allow for both drying of wet ink on the print medium, thereby facilitating faster completion of print jobs, and detection of smoke in the case of a fire caused by burning paper particulates.
Upon combination of the references, the heat source would be located above the belt so that the exhaust air duct is arranged such that an inlet from which gas is sucked in opposes the heat source portion below the suction fan and the belt.
While Examiner maintains the combining Bildstein with Kondo would yield a device wherein a heater was directly above a suction belt, Examiner introduces Kamoda as an express teaching of this arrangement (Kamoda, see fig. 1, Note heater 60 directly above suction belt 65 with fan 66). It would have been obvious to arrange a heating element and a belt opposing each other along a printing path because doing so would allow for exhausting of volatiles evaporated from ink during the heating process.
Further, it would have been obvious to position the detection portion so as to be arranged on a downstream side of the dust removal filter inside the exhaust air duct because positioning such a detector anywhere in the vicinity of a potential smoke hazard, including downstream or upstream of the filter, would have been obvious.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Bildstein and Kamoda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daun et al. (11,299,357).
Regarding claim 2, Kondo in view of Bildstein and Kamoda teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Kondo in view of Bildstein and Kamoda does not teach wherein
the exhaust air duct includes a bent portion that bends upward toward and outlet of the exhaust air duct
Upon combination of Daun with Kondo in view of Bildstein and Kamoda, the resultant device would meet the limitation: the dust removal filter is arranged between the inlet and the bent portion inside the exhaust air duct.
Further, it would have been obvious to arrange the detection portion on a downstream side of the bent portion inside the exhaust air duct because positioning such a detector anywhere in the vicinity of a potential smoke hazard, including downstream or upstream of the filter or the bent portion, would have been obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 571-202-5960. 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
Prosecution Insights