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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1, 8, and 15 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Takada (JP 2012208170), cited on the 8/24/2026 IDS, and Takada et al. (JP 2013-54108). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takada et al. (JP 2013-54108), hereinafter referred to as Takada ‘108’.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Takada ‘108’ teaches, “A fixing device, comprising: an endless belt (see para. [0017]); a fixing member configured to press (claim 15: for pressing) the belt against a recording medium holding an unfixed image to fix the unfixed image onto the recording medium (Fig. 2, ref. # 51 in combination with para. [0017]); a restorer (claim 15: restoring means for pressing) (60) configured to press against a surface of the belt after the image is fixed to restore the surface of the belt to a state before a fixing operation (ref. # 60 in combination with para. [0017, 0045]); and a changer (claim 15: changing means for changing) (62) configured to change a pressing load of the restorer based on a basis weight of the recording medium (see para. [0045, 0046, 0056–0058, 0108]).”
Regarding claim 8, Takada ‘108’ teaches, “An image forming apparatus, comprising: an image forming unit configured to form an image on a surface of a recording medium (see Fig. 1); and a fixing unit configured to fix the image formed on the surface of the recording medium (see Fig. 2), wherein the fixing device according to claim 1 serves as the fixing unit.”
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP 2012208170) in view of Takada ‘108’ (JP 2013-54108).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Takada teaches, “A fixing device, comprising: an endless belt (Fig. 2, ref. # 51); a fixing member (53) configured to press (claim 15: for pressing) the belt against a recording medium (P) holding an unfixed image to fix the unfixed image onto the recording medium; a restorer (claim 15: restoring means for pressing) (63) configured to press against a surface of the belt after the image is fixed to restore the surface of the belt to a state before a fixing operation (para. [0051–0059]).” While Takada teaches a changer (Fig. 3, ref. # 68) causing the restorer (63) to press/not press (see para. [0056, 0057]) the endless belt (51), Takada does not appear to teach, “a changer (claim 15: changing means for changing) configured to change a pressing load of the restorer based on a basis weight of the recording medium.” However, Takada ‘108’ teaches the deficiencies of Takada (see ref. # 62 and para. [0045, 0046, 0056–0058, 0108]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takada’s invention to include a changer (claim 15: changing means for changing) configured to change a pressing load of the restorer based on a basis weight of the recording medium.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Takada’s invention for at least the purpose of finely controlling the amount of refresh of the belt member, depending on the severity of surface scratches, as taught by the control of Takada ‘108’ (see para. [0045–0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Takada teaches, “An image forming apparatus, comprising: an image forming unit configured to form an image on a surface of a recording medium (Fig. 1); and a fixing unit configured to fix the image formed on the surface of the recording medium (Fig. 2), wherein the fixing device according to claim 1 serves as the fixing unit.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 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 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights