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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. All inventions within the subgroup classification fits the description of the present title. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: BELT UNIT, FIXING DEVICE, AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS HAVING A ROTATING SHAFT THAT TILTS IN A FIRST DIRECTION AND A SECOND DIRECTION.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20060119029 (herein Kitamura).
Regarding claim 1, Kitamura teaches A belt unit (belt drive device, [0053], Fig. 2) comprising:
a belt-shaped member being endless (transfer belt 51, [0054]); and
a support member that supports the belt-shaped member and rotates (bearings 62, [0054]), the support member having a rotating shaft (shaft of the idle roller 53, [0127]) that tilts in:
a tilt direction having a component in a first direction intersecting a bisector of a central angle of a wrapping range where the belt-shaped member is wrapped around the support member (movable range M, [0138], as shown in Fig. 30) and a component in a second direction where the belt-shaped member elongates and contracts (bearing 62 is pushed by the spring 59 in the direction in which the transfer belt 51 is stretched (i.e., a tension is applied to the transfer belt 51), [0063]); and
a direction where extent of shifting of the belt-shaped member to one side in a width direction of the belt-shaped member is reduced (downward force is applied to the idle roller 53, and therefore the movement of the roller tilting lever 64 (FIG. 6) is stabilized. Thus, the skewing of the transfer belt 51 can be prevented and the stable movement of the transfer belt 51 can be ensured, [0139]).
Regarding claim 2, Kitamura teaches a guide part with which the rotating shaft of the support member is guided in the tilt direction (arm 63, [0115], Fig. 30).
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura teaches wherein: the guide part has: a first guide portion that defines a range in a direction where the belt-shaped member elongates and with which the rotating shaft is guided in the first direction (arm 63 has a hole 63b in which the bearing 62 is supported so that the bearing 62 is movable toward and away from the drive roller 52, [0063]); and a second guide portion that defines a range in a direction where the belt-shaped member contracts and with which the rotating shaft is guided in the tilt direction (arm 63 is rotatably supported by the rotation shaft 63a, [0063], which guides rotation of arm 63).
Regarding claim 4, Kitamura teaches a guide part with which the rotating shaft of the support member is guided in the tilt direction that is a circumferential direction around a rotation center positioned off the bisector (arm 63 is rotatably supported by the rotation shaft 63a, [0063], which guides rotation of arm 63).
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura teaches An image forming apparatus (image forming apparatus, [0043]) comprising: an image holding member that holds an image (image forming portions 41, [0048]); a transfer unit that transfers an image held by the image holding member onto a medium (transfer portion 50, sheet 11, [0049]); and the fixing device that fixes an image transferred onto the medium, to the medium (fixing portion 90, [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Kitamura teaches wherein the tilt direction is defined by a tilt angle that is set so that the component in the second direction and the component in the first direction satisfies a predetermined ratio ([0129] and Fig. 26A teach corresponding first state having a defined ratio of tilt).
Regarding claim 12, Kitamura teaches wherein a tilt angle between the tilt direction and the first direction is greater than 0° and less than 45° (Figs. 28-29 teach corresponding component direction M resulting in an angle between 0° and less than 45°).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140008184 (herein Hozumi).
Regarding claim 5, Kitamura not teach, “the component in the second direction is smaller than the component in the first direction.” However, Hozumi teaches it is known in the art to have skew correcting components equivalent to the present invention. [0085] teaches, “Of the two components Fa and Fb of the resultant force F, the force Fb perpendicular to the imaginary line 1 serves as a biasing force that tends to rotate the swivelable member 43 around the pivot point P, which in turn forces the roller shaft 6 in a direction angled relative to the line of action R such that the slidable member 41, co-movably coupled with the roller shaft 6, is forced toward the stationary member 42.” See Fig. 6A. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shift directions based on belt shift and skew. Based on MPEP 2144.05 II, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2020090344 A (herein Maida).
Regarding claim 6, Kitamura not teach, “a detection member that detects shifting of the belt-shaped member to one side in a width direction of the belt-shaped member; and a controller that tilts the support member according to a detection result of the detection member.” However, Maida teaches: edge sensors 150 and 152 are arranged on the OPS side of the belt 110 and detect the edge position of the belt 110 on the OPS side, [0118]; and control unit 200, [0137], that functions to control the functionality of a steering roller 130.
Regarding claim 7, Kitamura not teach, “wherein: the controller adjusts a tilt amount of the support member according to a change in the shifting over time.” However, Maida teaches control of meander control over time in [0141] and Fig. 10.
For claims 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the detection and steer control of Maida into the belt drive device of Kitamura. This limitation broadly replaces a manual step with an automated step. Based on MPEP 2144.04 III, providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity that accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220082968 (herein Amita) in view of Kitamura.
Regarding claim 8, Amita teaches A fixing device (fixing device 20, [0028]) comprising:
a belt unit (see Fig. 2A) including:
a belt-shaped member (fixing belt 22, [0019]) that comes into contact with a medium (sheet P, [0028]) onto which toner (toner T, [0030]) is transferred and transports the medium while heating the toner (heater 24, [0026]); and
a pressing member that faces the belt-shaped member and applies pressure to the medium while holding the medium between the pressing member and the belt-shaped member (pressure roller 30, [0027]).
Further regarding claim 8, Amita does not teach, “a support member that supports the belt-shaped member and rotates, the support member having a rotating shaft that tilts in: a tilt direction having a component in a first direction intersecting a bisector of a central angle of a wrapping range where the belt-shaped member is wrapped around the support member and a component in a second direction where the belt-shaped member elongates and contracts; and a direction where extent of shifting of the belt-shaped member to one side in a width direction of the belt-shaped member is reduced; and a pressing member that faces the belt-shaped member and applies pressure to the medium while holding the medium between the pressing member and the belt-shaped member.” However, Kitamura teaches a belt unit having equivalent limitations (see rejection of claim 1 above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the roller-shaft shifting member described by Kitamura into the fixing device of Amita. Since both belts of Amita and Kitamura may suffer the same issues regarding shift and skewing, one would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of reducing skewing ([0005]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura as applied to claims 1 and 10 above.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Kitamura does not explicitly teach, “wherein the predetermined ratio between the component in the second direction and the component in the first direction is 1:4” or “wherein the component in the second direction is 25% relative to the component in the first direction.” However, Figs. 28-29 teach a range of motion in direction M, and a slotted holes 63b that teaches a range of motion in F direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize tilt in the M and F directions to satisfy the ratio or percentage claimed for at least the purpose of applying proper tension and adjusting for skew. Based on MPEP 2144.05 II, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Kimura discloses independent mechanisms but the invention does not claim anything to exclude such a mechanism; tilting operates based on the lateral movement of the belt) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states Kimura discloses independent mechanisms but the invention does not claim anything to exclude such a mechanism. Furthermore, the Office disagrees. The arm 63 acts as a single system to control tilt of the shaft of roller 53 having an equivalent first component (M shown in Fig. 28) and second component (shown in counterforce F).
Applicant states tilting of Kitamura is operating based on the lateral movement of the belt, but claim 1 does not exclude such operation, nor does it specify how it operates. Claim 1 merely claims the support member has a shaft that tilts in the claimed directions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5358098 (herein Sundstrom) teaches relevant art relating to claims 10-13, where a ratio between slew and tilt angle may be regulated (Col. 3, Lines 47-48).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights