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.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,316. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite the same limitations except this application does not claim a sheet guide portion in claim 1 and is therefore considered to be broader than claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,316. Patent claims 2-15 are anticipated by claims 2-11 of U.S. Patent 12,210,316.
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, 6, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakazawa et al. (US Pub. 2015/0010322.)
Regarding claims 1, Nakazawa discloses an image forming apparatus 100 for forming an image on a sheet, the image forming apparatus comprising: a rotatable image bearing member 3 configured to bear a toner image; a transfer roller 61 configured to transfer the toner image from the rotatable image bearing member onto the sheet (par. 0063, fig. 1); a fan 350; and a duct 430 extending in a parallel direction to a shaft direction of the transfer roller (see fig. 2), wherein the duct includes an inflow port (see W1 inflow to duct 430a, fig. 2) on a first end side (front side) of the duct in the parallel direction and is configured to guide, from the first end side (front side) to a second end side (rear side) of the duct, air that has flowed into the duct through the inflow port, wherein the duct further includes, in an area 40a opposing the transfer roller (see fig. 14), a first opening portion 40a that is provided at a position closer to the first end side (opening 40a near the right end side, fig. 9) than to the second end side (left end side), and a second opening portion 40a that is provided at a position closer to the second end side (opening 40a near the left end side, fig. 9) than to the first end side (right end side), in the parallel direction (Y1 to Y2 direction, fig. 9) , and wherein the air supplied to the duct by the fan through the inflow port passes through the first opening portion and the second opening portion (fig. 13), and is supplied to the transfer roller (fig. 14.)
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Nakazawa discloses wherein the transfer roller is rotatable while being in contact with the rotatable image bearing member (par. 0073.)
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Nakazawa discloses wherein a first end of the duct 405 (fig. 9) is located at a position farther from a second end of the duct 406 (fig. 9) than a first end of the transfer roller (405 is closer to transfer roller 61 than second end 406, fig. 9, fig. 14) in the parallel direction, and the second end of the duct 406 is located at a position farther from the first end 405 of the duct than a second end of the transfer roller 61 in the parallel direction (fig. 9, fig. 14.)
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Nakazawa discloses wherein each of the first opening portion and the second opening portion has two or more holes 40a (fig. 9.)
Regarding claim 9, Nakazawa further discloses wherein air supplied into the image forming apparatus by the fan passes the transfer roller and enters into the duct through the first opening (air is supplied from image forming unit to the first duct, par. 0011.)
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.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al. in view of Yabuki et al. (US Pub. 2018/0239298.)
Nakazawa does not disclose the duct further includes a sheet guide portion of which an outer surface forms a part of a conveyance path for conveying the sheet.
Yabuki discloses an image forming apparatus 100 (fig. 1A) having a duct 413 with an outer surface 411 to form as a part for conveying a sheet (par. 0024, fig. 2A, 2B.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed outer surface, as disclosed by Yabuki, since such use of the duct outer surface configuration for conveying the sheet is well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-8, 13, and 15 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 claims 5 and 13, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the image forming apparatus of claims 4 and 12, respectively, and wherein the sheet guide portion is located upstream of the transfer roller in a conveyance direction of the sheet.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the image forming apparatus of claims 6 and 14, respectively, and wherein a total area of the two or more holes of the second opening portion is larger than a total area of the two or more holes of the first opening portion.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the image forming apparatus of claim 1 and wherein the duct further includes a slope portion configured to guide, toward the second opening portion or the first opening portion, the air that has flowed into the duct through the inflow port.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hoang Ngo whose telephone number is (571)272-2138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/HOANG X NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852