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 statement (IDS) submitted on 13 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 4 and 6-8 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 4, “a plane symmetrical arrangement” in line 10 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 3, on which claim 4 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same arrangement mentioned previously or a different arrangement? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same arrangement mentioned previously. Additionally, “the same direction” in line 13 is unclear as a longitudinal direction and a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction have both been mentioned previously in claim 2, on which claim 4 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the longitudinal direction, the direction intersecting the longitudinal direction, or a different direction? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the direction intersecting the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 6, “a reflectance” in line 4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 6 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same reflectance mentioned previously or a different reflectance? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same reflectance mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 7, “the control part” in line 3 and ”the treatment” in line 5 both lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore both unclear.
Regarding claim 8, “a drying apparatus” in line 4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same drying apparatus mentioned previously or a different drying apparatus? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same drying apparatus mentioned previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (USPGPub 20210389703 A1) in view of Ueda (JP 2022112111 A) and Abbasi et al. (USPGPub 20150349698 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches an apparatus comprising: a heater (23) (see figure 1, heating unit 23); a reflector (21R) having a reflecting surface which reflects infrared rays (see figure 1, reflection member 21R; and ¶26, The reflection member 21R reflects infrared light emitted from a light emitting unit 51 on a light receiving unit 52); and a measurement part which includes a light emitting part (51) and a light receiving part (52), and measures a reflectance on the reflecting surface (21R) (see figure 1, light emitting unit 51 and light receiving unit 52; and ¶59, an amount of the light detected by the light receiving unit 52 in the infrared light receiving period T3 is an amount of the above radiation light added with an amount of the infrared light received via the reflection member 21R from the light emitting unit 51). However, Kondo fails to explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is a drying apparatus; wherein the heater is an infrared heater; and wherein the reflectance is measured at a plurality of places on the reflecting surface.
However, Ueda teaches wherein the apparatus is a drying apparatus; and wherein the heater is an infrared heater (¶2, When forming images using an inkjet method, it is necessary to quickly dry the ink ejected onto the sheet to prevent image distortion, sheet deformation, or sticking. One example of a technique for drying ink is a device that uses infrared light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Ueda to have the heater be an infrared heater because of their heating efficiency and drying capabilities. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have the device be a drying device for the printing apparatus because it is necessary to quickly dry the ink ejected onto the sheet to prevent image distortion, sheet deformation, or sticking (Ueda, ¶2). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the reflectance is measured at a plurality of places on the reflecting surface.
However, Abbasi teaches wherein the reflectance is measured at a plurality of places on the reflecting surface (12) (see figure 1, receiver 14 (i.e. light receiving part) receiving light reflected by reflector 12 form a plurality of places).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kondo and Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Abbasi to have the light receiving part receive light from a plurality of places in order to increase the detection area and FOV of the receiving part, thereby allowing the device to gather more information regarding the reflecting surface.
Regarding claim 6, Kondo as modified by Ueda and Abbasi teaches the drying apparatus according to claim 1, comprising: a control part (Kondo 60) which performs a treatment for compensating for a quantity of heat when a reflectance measured by the measurement part is insufficient (Kondo, ¶47, The main control part 60a controls the heating unit 23 based on the temperature of the fixing belt 21 detected by the light receiving unit 52. This makes it possible to control the temperature of the fixing belt 21 within a predetermined temperature range suitable for the fixing).
Regarding claim 7, Kondo as modified by Ueda and Abbasi teaches the drying apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control part (Kondo 60) outputs predetermined information even when a required quantity of heat is not obtained by the treatment for compensating for a quantity of heat (Kondo, ¶69, the drive control part 60b controls the drive unit 41 based on the rotational speed V of the fixing belt 21 obtained in S8 to adjust the rotational speed of the pressing roller 22, so that the conveyance speed of the sheet S passed through the fixing nip area N is kept within the predetermined range (S9). Even if the fixing belt 21 is heat-expanded and the circumference L is varied, the conveyance speed of the sheet S can be kept within the predetermined range by the adjustment of the rotational speed of the pressing roller 22, so that it becomes possible to achieve an excellent conveyance of the sheet S; and see ¶63 for further details).
Regarding claim 8, Kondo as modified by Ueda and Abbasi teaches an image forming system comprising: an inkjet recording device which ejects ink on a sheet; and a drying apparatus according to claim 1, which dries the ink ejected by the inkjet recording device (Kondo, ¶2, The present disclosure relates to a fixing device used for an image forming apparatus such a copying machine, a printer, a facsimile and a multifunctional peripheral and an image forming apparatus including the fixing device; and Ueda, ¶2, When forming images using an inkjet method, it is necessary to quickly dry the ink ejected onto the sheet to prevent image distortion, sheet deformation, or sticking. One example of a technique for drying ink is a device that uses infrared light).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the drying apparatus according to claim 1 as claimed, wherein the infrared heater is formed in a rod-like shape, more specifically in combination with the light emitting part includes a plurality of light emitting elements provided along a longitudinal direction of the infrared heater, the light receiving part includes a plurality of light receiving elements provided along the longitudinal direction, and the measurement part includes a driving part which moves the light emitting part and the light receiving part in a direction intersecting the longitudinal direction.
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to for their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be objected to for its dependency on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights