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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a temperature estimation unit, a comparison unit, an energization control unit in claim 1; a transmission unit in claim 2; a transmission unit in claim 7. Every term that is referred to as a “device”, “part”, “member”, “unit”, or “portion” to execute a function without sufficient structure, is being considered a generic placeholder reciting a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 and 7 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 1 recites the limitation "the temperature estimate unit" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination over prior art, this limitation is interpreted as the temperature estimation unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,003,117 to Ota in view of JP 2009-145386 to Suzuki.
Ota teaches:
(claim 1) A temperature control device (14, Fig.2), comprising:
a temperature estimation unit (82) configured to provide an estimated temperature (EST) for an object (71) based on a previous estimated temperature (PREV) for the object and an energization pulse or a drive signal (SV) to be supplied to heater elements for changing a temperature of the object;
a calculation unit (85) configured to calculate a correction temperature value (WAE) based on high frequency components (HPF) of the estimated temperature from the temperature estimate unit and a detected temperature (Td) of the object from a temperature sensor unit (74);
a comparison unit (87) configured to receive the correction temperature value and a target temperature value (TGT) for the object and output a comparison result (DIF) based on a comparison of a reference difference value to a difference value based on the correction temperature value and the target temperature value;
a generation unit (88) configured to generate the energization pulse or the drive signal (Ps) to be supplied to the heater elements based on the comparison result output from the comparison unit;
wherein the object is a fixing belt of an image forming apparatus (col. 1 lines 12-20);
(claim 5) wherein the estimated temperature is corrected by a correction value that is set according to a historical temperature estimation result and a historical temperature detection result for a normal operation (col.16 lines 61-64).
Suzuki discloses a temperature control device including a comparison unit (failure detection means, Abstract) configured to receive a detected temperature of the object (by thermistors 24,25) and compare a reference difference value to a difference between the detected temperature of the object and the estimated temperature (pg. 10-3rd par.); and an energization control unit (emergency stop means 47) configured to stop energizing the heater elements if the difference exceeds the reference difference value. Suzuki’s temperature control device is capable of identifying that an abnormality has occurred in a temperature sensor providing the detected temperature of the object (pg.4-top par., pg.11-2nd par.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ota to comprise an energization control unit configured to stop energizing the heater elements if comparison result indicates the difference value exceeds the reference difference value, for at least the purpose of preventing damage to the device from overheating.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,003,117 to Ota in view of JP 2009-145386 to Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2004-230643 to Nomura.
Yukawa as modified above teaches a temperature control device according to claim 1 but appears silent about transmitting an abnormality notification to an external device and about energizing elements related to communication functions.
Nomura discloses an image forming apparatus configured to outwardly provide notification of output of a sensor in an image forming apparatus when power supply to a load of the image forming apparatus is interrupted for power savings. A power source 2 is not interrupted even in a power-saving mode and continues to supply power to one or more sensors for detecting a state of the apparatus, and an interface part 7 connected to a network, even in the power-saving mode. Thus, an external communication terminal can be notified of a sensor value in the image forming apparatus via the network (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure modify the image forming apparatus according of Yukawa such that
(claim 2) it further comprises a transmission unit configured to transmit an abnormality notification to an external device when the comparison result output from the comparison unit indicates the difference value exceeds the reference difference value,
(claim 3) wherein the abnormality notification includes information indicating an abnormality has occurred in the temperature sensor unit providing the detected temperature of the object;
(claim 4) the energization control unit keeps energizing elements related to communication functions even if the comparison result output from the comparison unit indicates the difference value exceeds the reference difference value, and
(claim 7) it further comprises a transmission unit configured to transmit an abnormality notification to an external server when the comparison result output from the comparison unit indicates the difference value exceeds the reference difference value
for at least the purpose of enabling alerting a network of the operable state of the apparatus while preventing further damage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30.
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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights