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.
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 2 and 4 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite for failing to conform with grammatical practice. It is unclear to examiner how a failure can occur “in” in the medium by the heating device.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the receiving part" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the emitting part" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is indefinite because Applicant does not claim how the gloss is measured. Is it a visual perception or is it measured by a gloss meter?
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soeda (JP 2016161676) and in view of Sanada (US 2012/0038724).
With regard to claim 1, Soeda discloses a drying apparatus (50) [heating unit] comprising:
a conveying device (55,60) [endless belt; ] which conveys a medium (2) on which an image is formed with ink, in a predetermined conveyance direction;
a heating device (56) [heater] which dries the ink of the medium conveyed by the conveying device under a high temperature environment;
a conveying rollers pair (53, 58) which is disposed on a downstream side of the heating device in the conveyance direction [Fig. 2], includes a driving roller (53) driven to be rotated and a driven roller (58) rotated by the driving roller, and conveys the medium passed through the heating device [Fig. 2];
a driven roller rotation detection part (72) [Fig. 8] which detects a rotating of the driven roller ; [Para. 0042] and
a control part (48)
Soeda does not disclose a driving roller rotation detection part which detects a rotating of the driving roller and stopping a driving of the heating device when the rotating of the driving roller is detected by the driving roller rotation detection part and a rotation period obtained by a detection result of the driven roller rotation detection part is longer than a reference rotation period.
Sanada teaches an encoder which detects rotation of a roller [Para. 0074]; and when a halt of conveyance of a recording medium is detected by a detection device, the heater control device implements control to halt heating performed by the heater. [Para. 0031]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an encoder to the driving roller of Soeda as taught by Sanada since it is known in the art that encoders detect rotation.
In addition, it would be obvious to halt heating when halt of conveyance of roller is detected as taught by Sanada for the purpose of stop driving the heating device when the rotation period of driven roller is longer than a reference rotation period for the purpose of avoiding excessive heating of a stationary recording medium and preventing the occurrence of abnormal heat generation or deformation of the recording medium caused by excessive heat.
With regard to claim 2, Soeda discloses wherein the reference rotation period is determined on the basis of a time at which a failure occurs in the medium by the heating device. [Para. 0026-0027]
With regard to claim 3, Soeda discloses wherein the driven roller rotation detection part is a
reflection type sensor (71) [photosensor; Para. 0025] including a light emitting part which emits light to an end portion of a rotating shaft (59A) of the driven roller [Para. 0025; Fig. 8] and a light receiving part which receives the light emitted from the emitting part and reflected on the end portion [Para. 0025].
With regard to claim 4, Soeda discloses wherein the end portion of the rotating shaft of the driven roller has a flat surface parallel to an axis direction of the rotating shaft and a curved surface along a circumferential direction of the rotating shaft [rotating body (70); Para. 025; Fig. 8], and the driven roller rotation detection part detects the rotating of the driven roller when the receiving part receives the light emitted from the emitting part and reflected on the flat surface [light is reflected off the surface of the blades of the rotating body (70); Para. 0025].
With regard to claim 5, Soeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the flat surface has a glossiness higher than a glossiness of the curved surface.
BYK teaches gloss is a subjective impression and not a physical property of the surface. Specular reflection, part of the overall gloss impression influenced by the reflection properties of the surface, can be physically and objectively measured. It also teaches convex or concave curvatures change the direction of reflection in a similar way to optical lenses or mirrors and thus falsify the result of the gloss measurement. Some products have such a small curvature that comparative measurements are possible with an appropriate tolerance. These deviations depend above all on the material, gloss level and geometry [See https://www.byk-instruments.com/support/knowledge/white-papers/appearance/gloss-measurement].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was filed to utilize the flat surface with a glossiness higher than a glossiness of the curved surface, since it is known in the art that visual perception of glossiness is dependent on the observer, illumination and material and product properties.
With regard to claim 6, Soeda disclose wherein the end portion of the rotating shaft of the driven roller is formed to be a rectangular cross-section so as to have a plurality of flat surfaces provided at equal angles in a circumferential direction of the rotating shaft [four flat plates; Para. 0025] and parallel to the axial direction of the rotating shaft [Fig. 8], and the driven roller rotation detection part detects the rotating of the driven roller when the light receiving part receives the light emitted from the light emitting part and reflected on the flat surfaces [Para. 0025-0026].
With regard to claim 7, Soeda discloses further comprising: a motor (65) which rotates the driving roller, wherein the control part drives the motor and stops the driving of the motor [Para.0028], and the driving roller rotation detection part is the control part [control unit detects the malfunction; Para. 0027].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM 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, 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.
/TRACEY M MCMILLION/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights