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 .
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 2-11 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, in line 4, recites: “being open toward a downstream side in the first direction”. Terms like “downstream” are relative terms that have to be tied to a direction of rotation or flow to have distinct meaning. The applicants are attempting to tie “downstream” to “a first direction”; however, the first direction is merely referred to and not defined beyond being a generic two-dimensional direction similar to “horizontal” or “vertical”.
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 2, 5, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (JP Pub.2009-271237).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto (JP Pub.2009-271237) teaches an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a first surface (fig.1, #10a) which is configured to be an outside surface of the image forming apparatus with respect to a first direction (fig.1, left-right direction; fig.2, lower left to upper right direction) and on which an air inlet opening is formed (fg.1&2, not shown, but must be present for air to enter #32 in fig.2), the air inlet opening being open toward a downstream side in the first direction (fig.1&2, #32 would be open toward one of the left-right direction in fig.1); a fan disposed inside of the first surface with respect to the first direction (fig.1&2, #34), the fan being configured to take in air into an inside of the image forming apparatus through the air inlet opening (fig.2, see directions of air flow) and send the air in a second direction perpendicular to both the first direction and a vertical direction (fig.2, see air flow arrow leaving #34); and a duct including (i) an upstream opening which is defined by an upstream end of the duct with respect to the second direction (fig.2, unlabeled duct end connected to #34; see annotated fig.2, below) and is open toward an upstream side in the second direction (fig.2, open toward #34 which is upstream in arrow direction) and (ii) a downstream opening which is defined by a downstream end of the duct in the second direction (fig.2, downstream end portion connected to #36; see annotated fig.2, below) and is open toward a downstream side in the second direction (fig.2, open toward #36 which is downstream in arrow direction), wherein the air taken in by the fan flows inside the duct through the upstream opening and is discharged outside the duct through the downstream opening (see fig.2), wherein with respect to the vertical direction, at least part of the upstream opening and at least part of the downstream opening are in the same position (fig.2, unlabeled duct has no elevation change), and wherein with respect to the first direction, at least part of the upstream opening and at least part of the downstream opening in the same position (fig.2, when viewed along the air flow arrow from #34, both ends of unlabeled duct will be in the same position along the first direction line).
Annotated Fig.2:
PNG
media_image1.png
441
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto (JP Pub.2009-271237) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein at least part of the air inlet opening is disposed upstream of the upstream opening with respect to the second direction (fig.2, area near #32 upstream of ‘upstream opening’, see annotated Fig.2, above).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto (JP Pub.2009-271237) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein a discharge opening is formed on the first surface (annotated fig.2, above, #35 on same surface as #32) and is open toward the downstream side in the first direction (see annotated fig.2, above, #35 is open toward the same direction as #32), wherein the air passing through the downstream opening is discharged outside the image forming apparatus through the discharge opening (see annotated fig.2, above, air from ‘downstream opening’ is eventually routed through to #35), and wherein at least part of the discharge opening is disposed downstream of the downstream opening with respect to the second direction (annotated fig.2, above, if second direction is interpreted/defined as the air flow route, this limitation is met).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto (JP Pub.2009-271237) teaches an image forming apparatus further comprising: a sensor unit disposed inside of the first surface with respect to the first direction (fig.2, #33) and being configured to detect an environmental condition (top of p.6), wherein the sensor unit is arranged within a region between the air inlet opening and a rotational axis of the fan with respect to the first direction (see fig.2, position of #33 relative to #32 and #34) and is arranged at a position upstream of the fan with respect to the second direction (fig.2, upstream of the mort downstream part of the fan in the direction along unlabeled duct).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto (JP Pub.2009-271237) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein a discharge opening is formed on the first surface and opens toward a downstream side in the first direction (fig.2, see #35), and wherein the discharge opening is apart from the downstream opening of the duct (see annotated fig.2, above, #35 apart from ‘downstream opening’).
Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806).
Regarding claim 2, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches an image forming apparatus (fig.1&2) comprising: a first surface (fig.2, left panel #62) which is configured to be an outside surface of the image forming apparatus with respect to a first direction (fig.2, direction parallel to right-hand panel #62) and on which an air inlet opening is formed (fig.2, opening in left wall through which #61 passes and where #60 is), the air inlet opening being open toward a downstream side in the first direction (fig.2, under different interpretations, the louvre, #66 can be the air inlet opening with the first direction being vertical (A) or the gap in the left-wall #62 that forms the left-facing opening of the recess portion can be the air inlet opening, along the first direction the same as arrows #65 (B)); a fan disposed inside of the first surface with respect to the first direction (fig.4, #64), the fan being configured to take in air into an inside of the image forming apparatus through the air inlet opening (fig.4, through entering #60 and #66; para.0044) and send the air in a second direction perpendicular to both the first direction and a vertical direction (see fig.4, air flow across #63 perpendicular to the vertical and vertical (A) or vertical and into-the-page directions (B)); and a duct (fig.2&3) including (i) an upstream opening which is defined by an upstream end of the duct with respect to the second direction (fig.3&4, in vicinity of #64a) and is open toward an upstream side in the second direction (fig.4, the portion of the duct adjacent to #64a opens toward right-hand side in left-right direction) and (ii) a downstream opening which is defined by a downstream end of the duct in the second direction (fig.2&3, downstream part of duct adjacent to #68) and is open toward a downstream side in the second direction (fig.3&4, duct formed between #63 and side face #62 opens toward left in left-right direction and then air can work its way out #68), wherein the air taken in by the fan flows inside the duct through the upstream opening and is discharged outside the duct through the downstream opening (see fig.2&4), wherein with respect to the vertical direction, at least part of the upstream opening and at least part of the downstream opening are in the same position (see fig.2&4), and wherein with respect to the first direction, at least part of the upstream opening and at least part of the downstream opening are in the same position (see fig.2&4).
Regarding claim 3, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches an image forming apparatus further comprising: an electric component disposed inside the duct (fig.3, unlabeled component on #63; para.0046).
Regarding claim 4, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches an image forming apparatus further comprising: a power supply board including the electric component and being disposed inside the duct (fig.3; #63; para.0054), and a supporting member to which the power supply board is fixed, wherein the supporting member is part of the duct (fig.3, not shown, but must be present to hold #63 in position shown).
Regarding claim 5, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein at least part of the air inlet opening is disposed upstream of the upstream opening with respect to the second direction (fig.4, area of #60 is upstream of #64A).
Regarding claim 6, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein a discharge opening is formed on the first surface (fig.2, #68 on left #62) and is open toward the downstream side in the first direction (fig.2 when first direction is according to interpretation (B)), wherein the air passing through the downstream opening is discharged outside the image forming apparatus through the discharge opening (see fig.2), and wherein at least part of the discharge opening is disposed downstream of the downstream opening with respect to the second direction (fig.2&4, if this was not the case, the most downstream components of #63 would not be sufficiently cooled).
Regarding claim 7, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein a rotational axis of the fan extends along the second direction (fig.4, #64 appears to have an axis that extends along the second direction as well as a vertical direction component).
Regarding claim 9, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein a discharge opening is formed on the first surface (fig.2, #68 on left #62) and opens toward a downstream side in the first direction (see fig.2, according to interpretation (B)), and wherein the discharge opening is apart from the downstream opening of the duct (fig.2-4 #68 is on side wall #62 while downstream opening is at the end between #62 and #63 facing left-right).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) in view of Sako (JP Pub.2013-152495).
Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 8 depends.
However, Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) fails to teach the use of an environmental condition sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Sako (JP Pub.2013-152495) teaches an image forming apparatus comprising an air inlet on an external cover of the apparatus casing (fig.2, #200 in the vicinity of indicator #30 in fig.1) further comprising: a sensor unit disposed inside of the first surface (fig.2, #30 inside opening; p.5, para.1, 2&5) with respect to the first direction and being configured to detect an environmental condition (p.4, para.1-3 and 6), and wherein the sensor unit is arranged within a region between the air inlet opening and a rotational axis of the fan with respect to the first direction (fig.2, #30 between #202 and external inlet in side wall) and is arranged at a position upstream of the fan with respect to the second direction (fig.2: #30 is offset from the axial center of the fan in the horizontal direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Shiomi (US Pub.2016/0209806) to have an environmental sensor mounted upstream of the fan as in Sako (JP Pub.2013-152495) in order to be able to accurately control the apparatus functions according the ambient air temperature to ensure good image quality (p.12, para.4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “a duct cover configured to cover at least part of the supporting member from an upstream side in the first direction such that an internal space of the duct through which the air flows is formed between the duct cover and the supporting member, and wherein the power supply board is disposed between the duct cover and the supporting member in the first direction, such that the internal space of the duct is partitioned by the power supply board” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 10-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the reference Shiomi, the applicants argue on p.9 that the recess suction louvre 66 would be opening downward and appears to infer that this does not meet the “open toward a downstream side in the first direction” claim limitations. The applicants appear to be reading more meaning into the limitations than currently exists in the claim language. The first direction is only defined as being perpendicular to the second direction. The claim language does not distinctly preclude the first direction from being the vertical direction. Thus, the Office contends that Shiomi does continue to meet the claim limitations of claim 2 when interpreting #66 as opening downstream in the first direction. As pointed out in the rejection above, this is only one of two possible interpretations of the first direction and the Office stands by both interpretations. The applicants also assert that Shiomi fails to disclose the features noted as being defincient in Ueno. This is a non-specific argument, but also the Office believes that the further described interpretations in the rejection above clarifies the Office’s position and notes where these ‘deficiencies’ are taught.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA K ROTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2154. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30AM-3:30 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.
/LKR/
5/5/2026
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights