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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fujita does not teach or suggest that one air blower has a high output mode and a low output mode depending on whether image formation is in progress. This argument is not persuasive because Fujita DOES teach two blower conditions, Q1/Q2 and Q3/Q4 (¶0070-¶0077). Furthermore, Fujita teaches the apparatus and thus the hardware processor controlling the two scenarios based the amount of pollution the device is producing, one to manage the heat of the fixing device and another to maintain a negative air pressure so dust particles and VOCs are not emitted outside of the device (¶0076-¶0080).
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 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, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita et al. US 2022/0187762 (Fujita).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches an image forming apparatus that forms an image on a continuous medium, the image forming apparatus comprising:
a fixer (301) that includes an elastic member (301b) and heats and fixes a toner image formed on the continuous medium (¶0041), the elastic member coming into in direct or indirect contact with the continuous medium (¶0040-¶0043);
a collector (422) that collects ultra fine particles generated from the elastic member (¶0056);
an air blower (404) that generates an air current toward a side of the collector (¶0058-¶0061); and
a hardware processor (102, control circuit not illustrated, ¶0055) that varies an output mode of the air blower wherein the hardware processor switches the air blower to a high output mode (Q4, 9.77 m.sup.3/min, ¶0070-¶0072) when image formation is in progress and switches the air blower to a low output mode (Q2, 2.13 m.sup.3/min, ¶0073-¶0077) when image formation is not in progress, the low output mode having an output that is greater than zero and less than the high output mode (¶0070-¶0077).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the hardware processor sets, varies the output mode of the air blower based on a temperature of the fixer (¶0058-¶0062).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1: wherein the hardware processor varies the output mode of the air blower according to a thickness of the continuous medium (¶0069).
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 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 of this title, 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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. US 2022/0187762 (Fujita) and Koyama et al. US 2023/0032807 A1 (Koyama).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Fujita differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the hardware processor varies the output mode of the air blower according to a printing distance for forming the image along a longitudinal direction of the continuous medium. Koyama teaches increasing the fan speed from low to high (FIG. 6) after the heating member has been at the target temperature for a predetermined period of time (¶0086-¶0088). Inherently the technique taught by Koyama anticipates varying the output of the cooling fan for the fixing device based on print distance, as longer print distances would mean the heating unit is at the target temperature longer and thus the higher speed would HAVE to kick in. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan control taught by Fujita to be threshold driven as taught by Koyama in a way that inherently anticipates printing distance, since Koyama teaches that by controlling the fan speed in this way, it is able to improve fixing quality by reducing the deterioration of fixing strength caused by the change in driving speed (Koyama, ¶0089).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. US 2022/0187762 (Fujita) and Nishida et al. US 2018/0074445 A1 (Nishida).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Fujita differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the hardware processor varies the output mode of the air blower according to whether toners of the five or more colors are used for the image formation. However this is known. Nishida teaches controlling the fan speed based on image density (¶0125-¶0127). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan control taught by Fujita to be controlled using the technique taught by Nishida which accounts for image density, since Nishida teaches that this technique allows for fine control of the fixing temperature even in non-uniform conditions which ultimately save power (Nishida, ¶0129).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1.
Fujita differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the hardware processor varies the output mode of the air blower according to a toner adhesion amount per unit area of the continuous medium. However this is known. Nishida teaches controlling the fan speed based on image density (¶0125-¶0127). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan control taught by Fujita to be controlled using the technique taught by Nishida which accounts for image density, since Nishida teaches that this technique allows for fine control of the fixing temperature even in non-uniform conditions which ultimately save power (Nishida, ¶0129).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. US 2022/0187762 (Fujita) and Kawano et al. US 2017/0185011 A1 (Kawano).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Fujita differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the hardware processor varies the output mode of the air blower according to whether a special toner is used for the image formation. Kawano teaches an image forming apparatus which uses white toner (4W) and controls a fixing fan for cooling (¶0062-¶0071). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan control taught by Fujita to be controlled using the technique taught by Kawano which accounts for special toners such as white, since Kawano teaches that this technique works even in a case with a jam and stuck medium (Kawano, ¶0071).
Regarding claims 9-10, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1.
Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Fujita differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the hardware processor varies the output mode of the air blower according to whether the continuous medium is a special medium. Kawano teaches an image forming apparatus which uses special medium and controls a fixing fan for cooling (¶0082-¶0083). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan control taught by Fujita to be controlled using the technique taught by Kawano which accounts for special mediums, since Kawano teaches that this technique works even in a case with a jam and stuck medium (Kawano, ¶0082-¶0083).
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. US 2022/0187762 (Fujita) and Haseba et al. US 2018/0081306 A1 (Haseba).
Regarding claim 12, Fujita teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1.
Fujita differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the hardware processor varies the output mode of the air blower based on whether the fixing roller and the pressure roller are separated from each other. Haseba teaches the hardware processor sets, in a case where the fixing roller and the pressure roller are separated from each other (via the contact/separation unit, ¶0057), the output mode of the air blower to a low output mode, and sets, in a case where the fixing roller and the pressure roller are not separated from each other, the output mode of the air blower to a high output mode (¶0069-¶0074). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fan control taught by Fujita to be controlled using the technique taught by Haseba based on the contact and separation of the fixing device (¶0069-¶0074).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA L ELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9793. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Jr. Lindsay can be reached on (571)272-1674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA L ELEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights