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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/24/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome the previous objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 05/22/2026.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 and cancelation of claim 9, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-10 are not persuasive. The arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 5 are mostly persuasive, however upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection for claim 5 is made over Veis (to 20180305157 A1) in view of in view of Hachmann (to DE 102015219329 A1), necessitated by amendment to claim 1 which claim 5 depends on.
Regarding claims 1-4, the applicant argues that Veis (to US 20180305157 A1) no longer anticipates claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) due to amendments, specifically that Veis does not teach the surface on the front side [of the conveyor belt] is configured to support the recording medium between the plurality of holes . The examiner respectfully disagrees. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard (see MPEP 2111). As best understood by the examiner, Veis teaches a surface that supports the recording medium between the plurality of holes. As interpreted previously from at least Fig. 4, the front side of the conveyor belt which includes suction cups 18 (upper/external side of suction cups 18 of media support 14) supports the recording medium (media sheet 52). Therefore, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the surface on the front side of the conveyor belt which includes suction cups 18 supports the recording medium between the plurality of holes (portion of Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
180
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, applicants arguments that Veis does not teach this feature of independent claim 1 are not persuasive, and the rejection in view of Veis, as previously laid out, will be maintained with added clarifications and addressing the amendments.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant argues that Mieney (to US 20200171853 A1) teaches the opposite to claim 1, specifically that the channels should be narrower closer to the side of the paper, and as understood by the examiner, would disqualify Mieney from teaching the claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (in this case, Mieney), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Mieney is not relied upon for teaching the features of claim 1. The features of claim 1, including the cross-sectional areas, are taught by Veis. Mieney is relied upon to teach specifically the dependent limitations from claim 6.
Claim 6 recites that “the conveyor belt has a first layer arranged relatively close to the front side and a second layer arranged relatively close to an opposite rear side”. By broadest reasonable interpretation, as done for the prior rejection of claim 6, the first layer may be the middle layer of Mieney as it is “relatively close to the front side” of the conveyer belt, and the second layer may be the inner layer of Mieney as it is “relatively close to an opposite rear side” of the conveyor belt. Therefore, the arguments against Mieney are not persuasive, and the rejection in view of Mieney, as previously laid out, will be maintained with added clarifications as needed .
Regarding claims 7-9, no specific argument was made other than the use of Veis which was addressed above. Therefore, the rejection, as previously laid out, will be maintained with added clarifications as needed.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant states “for similar reasons provided above”, the rejection should be withdrawn. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanchak is relied upon for a teaching of a hole of the aperture having a larger cross-sectional area on one side and not for a conveyer belt. Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “an opposite rear side” appears redundant with the previous recitation of “a rear side”. As presently understood, they appear to be the same thing, therefore “an opposite rear side” should be changed to “the rear side”.
In claim 4, “an opposite rear side”, “an inlet cross sectional-area”, and “an outlet cross sectional-area” are each already recited in claim 1.
In claim 6, “an opposite rear side” is already recited in claim 1. It should be changed to “the rear side”.
In claim 7, “a rear side” is already recited in claim 1. It should be changed to “the rear side”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veis et al. (US 20180305157 A1, from IDS), hereinafter referred to as Veis.
Regarding claim 1, Veis teaches a transport device (media support system 12; at para. 0016; Fig. 1-4) for transporting a recording medium (media sheet 52; at para. 0020; Fig. 2-4) through a printing unit (print unit 26; at para. 0016; Fig. 1, 3) of a printing device (printer 10; at para. 0016; Fig. 1, 3) the transport device comprising:
a conveyor belt (media support 14; at para. 0016; Fig. 1-4);
a movement unit configured to move the conveyor belt through the printing unit (belt drive mechanism 24; at para. 0016; Fig. 1, 3),
wherein the conveyor belt includes a plurality of holes (suction cups 18 with ports 54, and/or holes 56; at para. 0020; Fig. 2, 4) between a surface on a front side (upper/external side of suction cups 18; Fig. 4) and a rear side (under side of belts 16 opposite to suction cups side; Fig. 4),
wherein the surface on the front side (upper/external side/edged of suction cups 18; Fig. 4) is configured to support the recording medium between the plurality of holes (media sheet 52 is on upper/external side of suction cups 18 which is between holes; Fig. 4 as annotated for arguments above), and
wherein the plurality of holes on the front side of the conveyor belt has a first cross-sectional area (portion of Fig. 4 annotated below);
a negative pressure unit configured to generate a negative pressure in the plurality of holes of the conveyor belt by pumping out a fluid (air), so that a holding force is caused on the recording medium at the first cross-sectional area of the plurality of holes (vacuum control system 22 may include a vacuum source 20, such as a pump, to supply a vacuum to suction cups 18 to generate hold down forces; at para. 0013, 0016, 0022; Fig. 4, 5), and
the fluid for building up the negative pressure is pumped out through a second cross-sectional area that is smaller than the first cross-sectional area (air in suction cups 18 is evacuated from ports 54; at para. 0020; portion of Fig. 4 annotated below),
wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes on the front side of the conveyor belt has an inlet cross-sectional area (first-cross sectional area; portion of Fig. 4 annotated below),
the at least one hole has an outlet cross-sectional area at least one point between the front side and an opposite rear side of the conveyor belt (second-cross sectional area; portion of Fig. 4 annotated below), and
the inlet cross-sectional area is larger than the outlet cross-sectional area (first cross-sectional area is larger than the second cross sectional area, as applied to claim 1; portion of Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
308
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Veis teaches the transport device according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one hole extends in a shape of a cone at least along a section from the front side to the rear side of the conveyor belt (suction cup 18 has a conical shape; portion of Fig. 4 annotated above for claim 1), or
a cross-sectional area of the at least one hole is reduced along an axis from the front side to the rear side of the conveyor belt in one or more steps or continuously from the inlet cross-sectional area to the outlet cross-sectional area (the cross-sectional area of the suction cup 18 is continuously decreasing from the inlet/first cross-sectional area to the outlet/second cross-sectional area in order to create the conical shape).
Regarding claim 4, Veis teaches the transport device according to claim 1, wherein
the conveyor belt has a first layer arranged relatively close to the front side (suction cups 18 form a first layer on a front side of the media support 14; Fig. 1-4) and a second layer arranged relatively close to the rear side (continuous loop belts 16 form a second layer on a rear side of the media support 14; Fig. 1-4), which are firmly bonded to one another (suction cups 18 are fixed to the belts 16; at para. 0020);
the first layer and the second layer each have corresponding holes (ports 54 of suction cups 18 are aligned with holes 56 of belts 16; at para. 0020; Fig. 4); and
a hole of the first layer has the inlet cross-sectional area that is larger than the outlet cross-sectional area of a corresponding hole of the second layer (inlet/first cross-sectional area is larger than the outlet/second cross-sectional area; portion of Fig. 4 annotated above for claim 1).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veis as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hachmann et al. (DE 102015219329 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hachmann.
Regarding claim 5, Veis teaches the transport device according to claim 4, wherein
the hole of the first layer has a center surrounded by an edge of the hole of the first layer (outer edge of suction cup 18 with hash marks with open and center blank part in the middle; portion of Fig. 4 annotated above for claim 1).
However, Veis does not teach that the corresponding hole of the second layer extends between the edge and the center of the hole of the first layer, and/or the corresponding hole of the second layer does not enclose an axis extending vertically on the conveyor belt through the center of the hole of the first layer.
Hachmann teaches a conveyor belt (transport belt 3; at para. 0008; Fig. 1) with a supporting surface (between suction grooves 5; Fig. 1) with an inlet cross-sectional area (of suction grooves 5; Fig. 1) and a smaller outlet cross-sectional area (of connection openings 7; Fig. 1) wherein the hole of the first layer (suction grooves 5; Fig. 1) has a center surrounded by an edge of the hole of the first layer (portion of Fig. 1 annotated below),
the corresponding hole of the second layer extends between the edge and the center of the hole of the first layer, and/or the corresponding hole of the second layer does not enclose an axis extending vertically on the conveyor belt through the center of the hole of the first layer (at least the axes of suction grooves 5 are not enclosed by connected openings 7; portion of Fig. 1 annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
167
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 configuration of holes in an upper section and holes in a lower section as taught by Veis such that a hole in the lower section does not enclose a center of a hole in the upper section and extends between and an edge and center of the hole in the upper section for the purpose of providing suction of recording media to the holes with no excessive false suction even when the holes are only partially covered by the recording media as taught by Hachmann (at para. 0009, 0010).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mieney et al. (US 20200171853 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mieney.
Regarding claim 6, Veis teaches the transport device according to claim 1, wherein
the conveyor belt has a first layer arranged relatively close to the front side and a second layer arranged relatively close to the rear side, which are firmly bonded to one another (suction cups 18 may be affixed to the belt 16; at para. 0020).
the first layer has the plurality of holes (suction cups 18 with ports 54, and/or holes 56 as the first layer; at para. 0020; Fig. 2, 4).
However, Veis does not teach wherein the second layer includes a fluid-permeable material, in particular of a braid and/or a porous material, and the fluid-permeable material is configured such that a fluid flow through a hole of the plurality of holes of the first layer is throttled by the second layer.
Mieney teaches a conveyor belt (transport belt 120; at para. 0029; Fig. 2A) has a layer with a plurality of holes (middle layer 124 with perforations 128; at para. 0029-0031; Fig. 2A, 2B) bonded (by adhesive 130; at para. 0030; Fig. 2A) to an inner layer made of a porous non-perforated entangled fiber (inner layer 126; at para. 0029-0031; Fig. 2A). While not explicit that fluid flow through a hole of the plurality of holes of the first layer is throttled by the second layer, Mieney further teaches that the inner layer easily allows fluid flow (at para. 0029) and that the negative pressure is still created through the inner layer (at para. 0031). This is supported by an embodiment in which Mieney uses a woven material in place of the perforated material for a middle layer (at para. 0029, 0032; Fig. 3A) such that fluid still flows through each layer (at para. 0032). Therefore, it may be understood that the fluid flow may be throttled by the inner layer as a porous material similar to as done for instances wherein the inner layer includes holes.
Therefore, 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 conveyor belt as taught by Veis to further comprise an inner [second] layer made of a porous material bonded to the [first] layer with a plurality of holes, or to substitute a [second] layer with holes for one made of a porous material, for the purpose of reducing bending forces on the outer side of the layer with a plurality of holes and increasing the useful life of the layer with a plurality of holes as taught by Mieney (at para. 0033, 0034, 0036).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyagi (US 20100231676 A1, from IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Veis teaches the transport device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of holes of the conveyor belt each extend from the front side to the rear side of the conveyor belt (inlet of suction cups 18 extend to ports 54 that extend to holes 56 which open below; at para. 0020; Fig. 2, 4).
However, Veis does not teach wherein the transport device has a fixed aperture arranged on the rear side of the conveyor belt, the movement unit moves the conveyor belt along the aperture, the aperture has a plurality of holes, the negative pressure unit pumps fluid through the plurality of holes of the aperture to create the negative pressure in the plurality of holes of the conveyor belt, and the aperture is configured such that the aperture at least partially covers the plurality of holes of the conveyor belt to provide the reduced second cross-sectional area through which fluid is pumped to create the vacuum.
Miyagi teaches an image forming apparatus (100; Fig. 4), wherein
the transport device has a fixed aperture arranged on a rear side of the conveyor belt (flexure prevention member 13 is on the back side of conveyor belt 8; at para. 0055; Fig. 1; flexure prevention member 13 is hereinafter referred to as member 13),
the movement unit moves the conveyor belt along the aperture (belt rollers 7 and 7 move conveyor belt 8 in the paper conveyance direction along path 8X (over member 13); at para. 0052; Fig. 1, 4),
the aperture has a plurality of holes (suction holes 13a; at para. 0008; Fig. 1),
the negative pressure unit pumps fluid through the plurality of holes of the aperture to create the negative pressure in the plurality of holes of the conveyor belt (suction fan 23 makes suction through suction holes 8a and suction holes 13a to hold/carry paper; at para. 0008; Fig. 1), and
the aperture is configured such that the aperture at least partially covers the plurality of holes of the conveyor belt to provide the reduced second cross-sectional area through which fluid is pumped to create the vacuum (portion of Fig. 1 annotated below; total of second cross-sectional area parts is smaller than first cross-sectional area).
PNG
media_image4.png
241
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 transport device taught by Veis to further include an aperture as described for claim 7 for the purpose of preventing sagging of the conveyor belt during paper sheet conveyance as taught by Miyagi (at para. 0055).
Regarding claim 8, Veis as modified by Miyagi teaches the transport device according to claim 7, and Miyagi further teaches wherein the plurality of holes of the aperture and the plurality of holes of the transport belt are formed in such a way that the second cross-sectional area remains substantially constant during a relative movement between the transport belt and the aperture (portion of Fig. 1 annotated above for claim 7; both holes 8a of conveyor belt 8 and holes 13a of member 13 are constant in size and interval, therefore the amount of overlap to form a second cross-sectional area is constant as the conveyor belt 8 moves).
Therefore, 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 transport device taught by Veis to include an aperture as further described for claim 8 for the purpose of preventing sagging of the conveyor belt during paper sheet conveyance as taught by Miyagi (at para. 0055).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veis in view of Miyagi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tanchak et al. (US 20200276847 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tanchak.
Regarding claim 10, Veis as modified by Miyagi teaches the transport device according to claim 7, however Veis or Miyagi teach wherein a hole of the aperture has a larger cross-sectional area on a side facing the rear side of the conveyor belt than on a side facing away from the rear side of the conveyor belt.
Tanchak teaches an aperture (marker platen 10; at para. 0057-0059; Fig. 7) wherein holes of the aperture have larger cross-sectional area on a side facing the rear side of a conveyor belt (vacuum channels 14 and 16 face transport belt 39; at para. 0058, 0059; Fig. 6, 7) than on a side facing away from the rear side of the conveyor belt (vacuum ports 30 and 32; at para. 0057; Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the aperture as taught by Veis as modified by Miyagi such that the hole of the aperture has a larger cross-sectional area on a side facing the rear side of the conveyor belt than on a side facing away from the rear side of the conveyor belt for the purpose of providing smaller “ports” to feed the larger “channels” for the vacuum as taught by Tanchak (at para. 0057).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishii et al. (US 20200171853 A1) discloses a medium support section relevant to at least claim 3.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA M VAN KREUNINGEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9423. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 9:00am-6:00pm and Fri 9:00am-1:00pm.
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, DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/KYRA MELOR VAN KREUNINGEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
