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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/9/2025 and 1/9/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Asada et al. (US 2017/0266988 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Asada et al. disclose a sheet drying apparatus comprising:
a conveyance portion (at least conveyance belt 325) that conveys a sheet on which an image is formed with ink containing moisture (paragraph 34 & Figs. 11, 14);
a drying portion (drying assembly 301) arranged opposite the conveyance portion (Fig. 11), the drying portion heating and drying the sheet (paragraph 54 & Fig. 11); and
a preliminary drying portion (at least the portion between drying assembly 301 and sandwiching start position PS: Fig. 11, 14) arranged adjacently upstream of the drying portion with respect to a conveyance direction of the sheet (Figs. 11, 14), the preliminary drying portion preliminarily drying the sheet (paragraphs 74, 80, 102 & Figs. 11, 14).
Regarding claim 4:
Asada et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the sheet drying apparatus is comprised in an image forming system (Fig. 1) that also comprises an image forming apparatus (image forming unit 200) that performs image formation on a sheet with ink containing moisture (paragraphs 37-42),
wherein the sheet drying apparatus is coupled to the image forming apparatus at a downstream side thereof in the conveyance direction of the sheet (Fig. 1), the sheet drying apparatus drying the sheet on which an image is formed by the image forming apparatus (paragraphs 44).
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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asada et al. (US 2017/0266988 A1) in view of Murashima et al. (US 2022/0281236 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Asada et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and also that the drying portion includes:
a heating unit having a plurality of infrared heaters (radiation heaters 312) arranged opposite the conveyance portion (paragraph 54 & Fig. 11), and
a hot air fan (blowing fans 311) arranged opposite the conveyance portion among the heating unit (Fig. 11), the hot air fan blowing toward the conveyance portion hot air heated as a result of air passing the heaters (Fig. 11),
wherein the hot air blows toward the conveyance portion passes upstream in the conveyance direction (F1) through a gap in a partition wall (in chamber 313: Fig. 11) formed between the drying portion and the preliminary drying portion (Fig. 11) and flows into the preliminary drying portion (Fig. 11).
Asada et al. do not expressly disclose that the heating unit includes a plurality of reflectors, or that the hot air fan is arranged opposite the conveyance portion across the heating unit.
However, Murashima et al. disclose a drying portion that suppresses damage to a blower fan (paragraphs 50-52) by including:
a plurality of infrared heaters (41) arranged opposite a conveyance portion (Figs. 3-4), and a plurality of reflectors (reflecting plates 43) that surround the infrared heaters from a direction opposite to the conveyance portion (Fig. 4); and
a hot air fan (blower fans 31) arranged opposite the conveyance portion across the heating unit (Figs. 3-4), the hot air fan blowing toward the conveyance portion hot air heated as a result of air passing through a gap from the reflectors (paragraph 45 & Fig. 4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of Asada et al.’s drying portion, in the manner taught by Murashima et al.
Regarding claim 3:
Asada et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 2, and Asada et al. also disclose that the conveyance portion includes:
a conveyance belt (325) that carries and conveys the sheet (Figs. 11, 14); and
a suction portion (suction section 326) that carries the sheet while sucking the sheet onto the conveyance belt by negative pressure suction via a number of suction holes formed in the conveyance belt (paragraph 117 & Fig. 11),
wherein the sheet drying apparatus further comprises:
a sheet blowing fan (blowing fan 341) that sucks in air outside the sheet drying apparatus (Fig. 11); and
a blowing duct (air flow guide 343) that communicates the sheet blowing fan with inside the preliminary drying portion (Fig. 14),
wherein the air sucked in by the sheet blowing fan and having passed through the blowing duct is blown, as blowing air (F3) for preventing the sheet from floating up in a non-suction space upstream of the suction portion of the conveyance belt in the conveyance direction (paragraphs 79-81), obliquely downward toward the non-suction space (Figs. 11, 14), downstream in the conveyance direction (Figs. 11, 14), and
wherein the blowing air and the hot air having flowed into the preliminary drying portion collide with each other (Figs. 11, 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rudd et al. (US 5634402) disclose a relative sheet drying apparatus, in that a hot air fan (40) is arranged opposite a conveyance portion across a heating unit (34), so as to blow hot air toward the conveyance portion as a result of air passing through gaps (54) in reflectors (48: Figs. 1-2).
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights