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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/21/2026, with respect to the restriction have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction of claims 11-18 has been withdrawn.
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 1-20 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.
The term “high velocity” in claim 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 17-19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high velocity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification does offer some insight as to what would be considered high velocity air in paragraph [0024] the phrase “Control of the high velocity air flow can be defined and modified based upon the media sheet type and weight, with greater air flow typically needed as media weight increases” creates a great deal of vagueness regarding the exact speed of high velocity air. Furthermore, the applicant most explicitly defines high velocity air in paragraph [0024] as “at least 40m/s, at least about 50m/s, about 60m/s to 160m/s” but then later states “The air velocity drops as the thin layer of high velocity air flows and expands in the direction of the arrows 38, over the curve baffle 32. For example, the air velocity may drop to about 0.5-30m/s, or to about 1.5-15.0 m/s as the air approaches a rear falling” creating further vagueness as to what speed defines high velocity air since the applicant’s own high velocity air drops below what they consider to be high velocity air.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishizawa et al. (JP 2020118363 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nishizawa et al teaches a curved baffle positioned below the paper path (Fig. 2 element 3b); a lower air flow device positioned adjacent the curved baffle (Fig. 3 element 3a and paragraph [0033]); and wherein the lower air flow device is configured to apply a layer of high velocity air that travels around the curved baffle and under the media to dry the marking material deposited on the media while diverting the media towards the curved baffle (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0033]); and an airflow producing member configured to apply an airflow adjacent the media (Fig. 2 element 5a and paragraph [0041]). The examiner notes the limitation that the airflow producing member is for removal of undesired substance from the media is intended use and hold not patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, Nishizawa teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and further comprising a pre-heat station upstream the curved baffle in the media processing direction (Fig. 1 element 10a where it is before the baffles under 10b and 10c), the pre-heat station configured to heat the media prior to media conveyance to the curved baffle (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Nishizawa teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and wherein the curved baffle is positioned between first and second media transports to convey the media along the paper path in the media processing direction (Fig. 2 element 2), and the airflow producing member including a vapor removal device positioned above the lower air flow device and above the paper path of the media conveyed between the first and second media transports (Fig. 2 element 5), the vapor removal device configured to apply the airflow towards and then away from the media (Fig. 2 ad paragraphs [0041] and [0049]). The examiner notes that the limitation that the vapor removal device is for removal of the undesired substance from the media is intended use and holds no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, Nishizawa teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and a method with the apparatus of claim 1, applying the layer of high-velocity air around the curved baffle positioned below the paper path (Fig. 2), the layer of high-velocity air supplied from the lower air flow device positioned adjacent the curved baffle (Fig. 3); the layer of high-velocity air travelling around the curved baffle and under the media (Fig. 2);
Regarding claim 12, Nishizawa teaches all the elements of claim 11 as stated above and further comprising positioning the curved baffle between first and second media transports to convey the media along the paper path in the media processing direction (Fig. 2 element 2), and the step of applying the airflow adjacent the media from the airflow producing member includes applying the airflow towards and then away from the media for removal of the undesired substance from the media via a vapor removal device as the airflow producing member (Fig. 2 element 5a and paragraphs [0041] and [0049]), the vapor removal device being positioned above the lower air flow device and above the paper path of the media conveyed between the first and second media transports (Fig. 2 element 5a).
Regarding claim 14, Nishizawa teaches all the elements of claim 12 as stated above and further comprising, before step a), heating the media via a pre-heat station upstream the curved baffle in the media processing direction ((Fig. 1 element 10a where it is before the baffles under 10b and 10c and paragraph [0024]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al. (JP 2020118363 A) in view of McClenathan et al. (US 3577653 A).
Regarding claim 4, Nishizawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 3 as stated above and Nishizawa et al. fails to teach the vapor removal device including an upper air flow device and a filter collector downstream the upper air flow device in the media processing direction, the filter collector configured to collect the undesired substance from the media removed via the upper air flow device.
McClenanthan teaches, the vapor removal device including an upper air flow device (Fig. 1 elements 36 and 34 respectively) and a filter collector downstream the upper air flow device in the media processing direction (Fig. 1 element 33 and Col. 2 lines 52-61), the filter collector configured to collect the undesired substance from the media removed via the upper air flow device (Fig. 1 element 33 and Col. 2 lines 52-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to include a filter as taught by McClenanthan et al. to the apparatus taught by Nishizawa et al. as a combination of 2 elements known in the art to yield a printer capable of filtering out unwanted particles.
Regarding claim 13, Nishizawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 12 as stated above and wherein the high velocity air is high velocity heated air supplied from the lower air flow device that heats the media to dry the marking material deposited thereon (paragraph [0033]).
But Nishizawa et al. fails to teach further comprising collecting the undesired substance from the media removed via the upper air flow device with a filter collector downstream the vapor removal device in the media processing direction.
McClenanthan et al. teaches further comprising collecting the undesired substance from the media removed via the upper air flow device (Fig. 1 element 34) with a filter collector downstream the vapor removal device in the media processing direction (Fig. 1 element 33 and Col. 2 lines 52-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to include a filter as taught by McClenanthan et al. to the apparatus taught by Nishizawa et al. as a combination of 2 elements known in the art to yield a printer capable of filtering out unwanted particles.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al. (JP 2020118363 A) in view of Terrero et al. (US 20200339374 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nishizawa et al. teaches all the elements of claim 3 as stated above and Nishizawa et al. fails to teach wherein the curved baffle is a semi-circular curved baffle having a front side rising section adjacent the first media transport and a rear side falling section adjacent the second media transport, the curved baffle including entrance ribs at the front side rising section to provide a first boundary condition for the media conveyed from the first media transport, and exit ribs at the rear side falling section to provide a second boundary condition for the media conveyed to the second media transport.
Terrero et al. teaches wherein the curved baffle is a semi-circular curved baffle (Fig. 1 elements 62) having a front side rising section adjacent the first media transport (Fig. 1 element 70) and a rear side falling section adjacent the second media transport (Fig. 1 element 80), the curved baffle including entrance ribs at the front side rising section to provide a first boundary condition for the media conveyed from the first media transport (Fig. 1 element 64 and paragraph [0012]), and exit ribs at the rear side falling section to provide a second boundary condition for the media conveyed to the second media transport (Fig. 1 element 66 and paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the apparatus of Nishizawa et al. with the ribs of Terrero et al. to “in addition, entrance ribs 64 with openings therein are used to provide a boundary condition for down-curled media, while simultaneously allowing air flow to pass between the ribs to enhance initial acquiring of the up-curled sheet 11. Exit ribs 66 are included to provide a boundary condition for down-curled media, while simultaneously providing a trajectory during hand-off of the media to another transport” (Terrero et al. paragraph [0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 15-18 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 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including wherein the layer of high velocity air is high velocity heated air that travels around the curved baffle and under the media to heat the media and dry the marking material deposited thereon, the vapor removal device includes an upper air flow device configured to apply an airflow at a velocity lower than the high velocity heated air above the media for removal of the undesired substance from the media, and the airflow is a heated airflow hotter than a temperature of ambient air surrounding the airflow.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including wherein the vapor removal device includes an electric field generator having a high voltage electrode under a conductive shield opened towards the curved baffle, the electric field generator configured to establish an electric field between the curved baffle and the conductive shield and create the airflow adjacent the media. The examiner notes that Yasushi et al. (JP H09160349 A) does teach a similar electric field generator, however it does not have a curved baffle and does not direct its airflow towards a medium but rather a roller. Furthermore, it does not teach that the shield is conductive or seem to exactly place it in a figure such that it is possible to determine its location. Also, it does not teach a voltage that could be regarded as high voltage as stated in the definition found in the applicant’s specification in paragraph [0041]. As such it does not appear, at this time, to render the invention nonobvious.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including a lower cold air flow device positioned adjacent the second curved baffle and under the media conveyed from the second media transport, the lower cold air flow device configured to apply a layer of high velocity cold air colder that the high velocity air that travels around the second curved baffle and cools the media while moving the media about the second curved baffle.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the method steps as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including the vapor removal device including an upper air flow device, the method further comprising the upper air flow device applying an airflow above the media at a velocity lower than the high velocity heated air for removal of solvents including the vapor from the media, wherein the airflow is a heated airflow hotter than a temperature of ambient air surrounding the airflow.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the method steps as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including the vapor removal device including an electric field generator having a high voltage electrode under a conductive shield opened towards the curved baffle, the method further comprising the electric field generator establishing an electric field between the curved baffle and the conductive shield and create the airflow adjacent the media. The examiner notes that Yasushi et al. (JP H09160349 A) does teach a similar electric field generator method, however it does not have a curved baffle and does not direct its airflow towards a medium but rather a roller. Furthermore, it does not teach that the shield is conductive or seem to exactly place it in a figure such that it is possible to determine its location. Also, it does not teach a voltage that could be regarded as high voltage as stated in the definition found in the applicant’s specification in paragraph [0041]. As such it does not appear, at this time, to render the invention nonobvious.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the method steps as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including wherein a second curved baffle is positioned downstream the second media transport, the paper path of the media extends beyond the second media transport around the curved baffle, and a lower cold air flow device is positioned adjacent the second curved baffle and under the paper path of the media conveyed from the second media transport, the method further comprising the lower cold air flow device applying a layer of high velocity cold air colder that the high velocity air that flows around the second curved baffle and under the media to cool the media while moving the media about the second curved baffle.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the method steps as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including wherein an upper cold air flow device is positioned above the lower air flow device and above the paper path of the media conveyed from the second media transport, the method further comprising the upper cold upper air flow device applying a layer of air colder than the high velocity air and at a velocity lower than the high velocity air above the media to further cool the media.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure as claimed in alone or combination with and particularly including a vapor removal device positioned above the lower hot air flow device and above the paper path of the media conveyed between the first and second media transports, the vapor removal device including an upper air flow device configured to apply an airflow at a velocity lower than the layer of high velocity heated air above the media.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yasushi et al. (JP H09160349 A), Yraceburu et al. (US 20190202217 A1) and Smith (US 5020244 A) are cited for having structure similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights