Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 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.
2. Claims 1, 3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0352650 (Chen et al.) (hereinafter “Chen”).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-6 show a sheet conveyor apparatus (Fig. 6) comprising:
an air turn bar (20) configured to turn back a strip-shaped sheet conveyed along a predetermined conveyance passage (passage in Fig. 6); and
a hood (10) including an inner circumferential surface opposing an outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20), wherein:
the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20) includes an ejection hole (22) configured to eject air toward one surface of the sheet;
the inner circumferential surface of the hood (10) includes a suction hole (“suction hole” in annotated Fig. 5 above) configured to suck air from another surface of the sheet; and
the suction hole (“suction hole” in annotated Fig. 5 above) is an opening in a region of the inner circumferential surface of the hood (10), wherein the region opposes the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20).
Regarding claim 3, Figs. 1-6 show that the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20) includes a semi-circular cross-sectional shaped portion (21); and the air turn bar (20) is configured to turn back the conveyed sheet in an opposite direction.
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-6 show that the suction hole (“suction hole” in annotated Fig. 5 above) is formed in at least an area of the region of the inner circumferential surface of the hood (10), and the area opposes a turn end portion of the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20).
Regarding claim 7, Figs. 1-6 show that the suction hole (“suction hole” in annotated Fig. 5 above) includes a plurality of suction holes (3 different suction holes in annotated Fig. 5 above) in the region of the inner circumferential surface of the hood (10).
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.
3. Claims 2, 4-5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 2021-50051 (hereinafter “JP’051”) (cited in the 2/12/2025 IDS). With regard to claim 2, Chen shows a plurality of guide rollers (60), but not a plurality of guide rollers, as claimed.
JP’051 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide an air turn bar (210 in Fig. 11) with a plurality of guide rollers (238) arranged along the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (210). Numbered paragraph [0059] explains that guide rollers (238) make it possible to bend the transport direction of a sheet with low friction while making the floating amount of a floating target portion uniform. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Chen apparatus with guide rollers along the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20), for the purpose of bending the transport direction of the sheet with low friction while making the floating amount of the floating target portion uniform, as taught by JP’051. Providing the air turn bar (20) of the Chen apparatus with guide rollers in close proximity to the outer surface of the sheet, in a manner as shown in Fig. 11 of JP’051, results in the guide rollers being along the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20) of Chen and the inner circumferential surface of the hood (10) of Chen, as claimed. Thus, all of the limitations of claim 2 are met by the cited combination of references.
With regard to claim 4, Chen teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the semi-circular cross-section shaped air turn bar (20), but does not show an upstream portion extending from the semi-circular cross-sectional shaped portion, as claimed.
JP’051 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a sheet conveyor apparatus (Fig. 11) with an outer circumferential surface of an air turn bar (210) with an upstream portion (right-hand cross-hatched portion labeled with reference numeral “210”) extending from a semi-circular cross-sectional shaped portion (left-hand cross-hatched portion) toward an upstream of a conveying direction of a sheet; and the upstream portion includes an upstream ejection hole (unnumbered opening in right-hand cross-hatched portion) configured to eject air toward one surface of the sheet. Because both JP’051 and Chen teach air turn bar arrangements for blowing air on sheets, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the air turn bar arrangement of JP’051 for the air turn bar arrangement of Chen to achieve the predictable result of blowing air on sheets.
With regard to claim 5, Chen teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the inner circumferential surface of the hood (10) and the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (20), but does not show that the hood has an opposing portion opposing the upstream portion of the air turn bar and does not show a guide roller, as claimed. As noted above with regard to claim 4, JP’051 teaches the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (210) with the upstream portion (right-hand cross-hatched portion labeled with reference numeral “210”). Also, JP’051 shows multiple guide rollers (238) around the upstream portion (right-hand cross-hatched portion labeled with reference numeral “210”), for the purpose of bending the transport direction of the sheet with low friction while making the floating amount of the floating target portion uniform. As such, providing the Chen apparatus with an air turn bar arrangement that has an upstream portion and multiple guide rollers, in a manner as taught by Fig. 11 of JP’051, results in the inner circumferential surface of the hood including an opposing portion opposing the upstream portion; and the conveying apparatus further comprising a guide roller disposed between the opposing portion of the inner circumferential surface of the hood and the upstream portion of the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar, as claimed.
With regard to claim 8, MPEP 2115 states “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).” The recitation “wherein a length of the upstream ejection hole perpendicular to the conveying direction of the sheet is greater than a width of the sheet perpendicular to the conveying direction of the sheet” in claim 8 depends upon the material or article acted upon by the structure being claimed. As such, this recitation does not patentably distinguish claim 8 from the prior art apparatus of Chen in view of JP’051. (emphasis added). As one working example, a specially dimensioned narrow width sheet can be placed in the apparatus of Chen in view of JP’051 to satisfy the claim limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 11 of JP’051 shows a vane plate (C-shaped plate 222) on an inner side of the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar (210), wherein the vane plate (222) is configured to guide an air flow toward the upstream ejection hole (unnumbered opening in right-hand cross-hatched portion) and set a direction of the air flow toward the upstream ejection hole (unnumbered opening in right-hand cross-hatched portion).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Based on what is discussed in the cited portions of Chen, the Office's asserted unnumbered hole between curved members of the negative pressure unit 10 is a gap between the first protective member 16 and the second protective member 17. This gap is not an opening in a region of the inner circumferential surface of the negative pressure unit 10 that opposes the outer circumferential surface of the air discharge unit 20
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that this structural limitation recited in claim 1, i.e., a suction hole that is an opening in the hood's inner circumferential surface for sucking air from the sheet, is not disclosed by Chen, which creates suction via the Venturi effect from air discharge rather than through a suction hole/opening in a region of the inner circumferential surface of the hood for sucking air.
Therefore, Chen does not disclose "a suction hole configured to suck air from another surface of the sheet; and the suction hole is an opening in a region of the inner circumferential surface of the hood, wherein the region opposes the outer circumferential surface of the air turn bar," as recited in claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Applicant states above that the unnumbered hole between curved members of the negative pressure unit 10 is a gap. The dictionary specifically defines “hole” as “1. an opening through something; gap; aperture: a hole in the roof; a hole in my sock. 2. A hollow place in a solid body or mass; a cavity; a hole in the ground.” See Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1996 by Random House Value Publishing, Inc., at page 911. With the broad dictionary definitions of “hole” being a gap or cavity, the gap between curved members 16 and 17 of Chen is a suction opening, as claimed. This suction opening is in a region on an inner circumferential surface of hood 10 that opposes an outer circumferential surface of air turn bar (20). See, e.g., Figs. 1 and 4 of Chen. All of the limitations of claim 1 are met by Chen.
The rejections of dependent claims 2-8 and 10 are also outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 9 and 11-12 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.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Mike McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights