Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/991,955

MOISTENING DEVICE, RECORDING SYSTEM, AND INTERMEDIATE UNIT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 23, 2024
Examiner
FERGUSON SAMRETH, MARISSA LIANA
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Seiko Epson Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
537 granted / 773 resolved
+1.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
796
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 773 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 4-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant’s election was made without traverse of distinct species A1 and B1 in the reply filed on 11/24/25. 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 1, 2, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US Publication 2015/0316890) in view of Thienst et al. (US Publication 2018/0134431). With respect to claim 1, Okuda et al. teaches a moistening device (202) that moistens a medium (P) by spraying a moistening liquid (L) onto the medium (P), the moistening device (202) comprising: a transport section (C1, C2) configured to transport a medium (P) along a transport direction (B); and a spray section (252) that sprays the moistening liquid (L) onto the medium (P) transported by the transport section (B, Paragraphs 0066, 0067). However, Okuda et al. does not explicitly disclose a movement section configured to move the spray section. Thienst et al. teaches a movement section (42) configured to move the spray section (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the spray section of Okuda et al. to provide a movement section that moves the spray section as taught by Thienst et al. for the purpose of providing a varied or adapatable spray section. With respect to claim 2, Thienst et al. teaches the movement section (42) pivots the spray section (30) about a pivoting shaft that is along the transport direction (Paragraphs 0042, 0044, Figures 6, 7). With respect to claim 15, Okuda et al. teaches the transport section (C1, C2) transports the medium (P) in a direction (B) intersecting a horizontal direction from a lower side to an upper side (Figure 4) and the spray section starts spraying before the spray section and a moisten region of the medium face each other (note: the limitation appears to be a method step, however the claim is directed to a device). With respect to claim 17, Okuda et al. teaches a recording system comprising: a recording device (500) that performs recording by ejecting liquid onto a medium (P) and the moistening device (202) according to claim 1 (Paragraphs 0038, 0040, 0041). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US Publication 2015/0316890) in view of Thienst et al. (US Publication 2018/0134431) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Ishihara et al. (JP2023140943). With respect to claim 18, Okuda et al., as modified, teaches the claimed invention with the exception of a drying device that dries the medium on which recording was performed by the recording device and which was moistened by the moistening device. Ishihara et al. teaches an image forming apparatus (Figure 2) with a drying device (241) that dries the medium (P) on which recording was performed by the recording device (210) and which was moistened by the moistening device (note: the combination of Okunda et al., as modified, with the drying device and the location of the drying device of Ishihara et al. would satisfy the limitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the recording system taught by Okunda et al., as modified, to provide a drying device as taught by Ishihara et al. for the purpose of ensuring the moisture in the paper is evaporated. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US Publication 2015/0316890) in view of Thienst et al. (US Publication 2018/0134431) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Segerer et al. (US Publication 2005/0158099). with respect to claim 19, Okuda et al. teaches the claimed invention with the exception of a post-processing device that performs post-processing on the medium on which recording was performed by the recording device and which was moistened by the moistening device. Segerer et al. teaches multi-function device with a post-processing device (MA2) that performs post-processing on the medium (1) on which recording was performed by the recording device (MA1) and which was moistened by the moistening device (22, 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by Okuda et al., as modified, to provide a post processing device as taught by Segerer et al. for the purpose of ensuring the medium can be optimally met. 6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US Publication 2015/0316890) in view of Thienst et al. (US Publication 2018/0134431) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Segerer et al. (US Publication 2005/0158099) and Ishihara et al. (JP2023140943). With respect to claim 20, Okuda et al., as modified, teaches the claimed invention including a moistening device (202) however does not disclose an intermediate unit that is provided between a recording device that performs recording on a medium and a post-processing device that performs post-processing on the medium on which recording was performed by the recording device and that transports the medium from the recording device to the post-processing device, the intermediate unit comprising: the moistening device according to claim 1 and a drying device for drying the medium. Segerer et al. teaches an intermediate unit (BE) that is provided between a recording device (MA1) that performs recording on a medium (1) and a post-processing device (MA2) that performs post-processing on the medium (1) on which recording was performed by the recording device and that transports the medium from the recording device to the post-processing device (Paragraphs 0064, 0065, Figure 1), the intermediate unit (BE) comprising: the moistening device (22, 23) according to claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the invention taught by Okuda et al., as modified, to provide a intermediate unit and post processing device as taught by Segerer et al. for the purpose of ensuring the medium can be optimally met. However, Segerer et al. does not explicitly disclose a drying device for drying the medium. Ishihara et al. teaches an image forming apparatus (Figure 2) with a drying device (241). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the present invention was made to modify the recording system taught by Okunda et al., as modified, to provide a drying device as taught by Ishihara et al. for the purpose of ensuring the moisture in the paper is evaporated. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 is 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. With respect to claim 3, the prior art does not teach or render obvious a moistening device includes a plurality of spray sections, the plurality of spray sections includes a first spray section that sprays the moistening liquid onto a center region of the medium in a width direction intersecting the transport direction and a second spray section that sprays the moistening liquid onto a region different from the center region in the width direction, and the movement section pivots the second spray section about the pivoting shaft. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kougami et al. (US Publication 2006/0133876), Shirasaka (CN106054552) and Hess (DE19958295) teaches printer/medium conveying devices with moistening devices. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA LIANA FERGUSON SAMRETH whose telephone number is (571)272-2163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m.-5 p.m. 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. /Marissa Ferguson-Samreth/Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594756
SYSTEM FOR RECOVERING A CLEANING SOLUTION AND PRINTING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583249
ROLLER FOR HOT STAMPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577080
PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576654
FOOD PRODUCT SCALE AND ASSOCIATED LABEL STOCK JUSTIFICATION ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558916
METAL DECORATION MANUFACTURING APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+3.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 773 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month