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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/08/2024.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,990,058 to Kano et al. (herein forward Kano-’058) in view of JP 2011-098426 to Oshima and US 10,423,092 to Iwasaki et al.
Kano-’058 teaches:
(claim 1) A cleaning body 100 for an image forming apparatus comprising:
a core 100A; and
a foam elastic layer 100B that is disposed by winding a strip-shaped foam elastic member around an outer peripheral surface of the core in a helical shape from one end to the other end of the core (Fig.7),
wherein the foam elastic layer has cells A and a cell skeleton B that is a partition wall present between the cells, the cell skeleton has a tip portion protruding on a contact surface of the foam elastic layer with a body to be cleaned, and a diameter of the tip portion is equal to or less than 50 mm (Fig.3, col. 3 lines 22-32).
Kano-’058 appears silent about a ratio Dy/Dx as claimed.
Oshima teaches a polishing pad (i.e., cleaning body) including a polishing layer 10 formed of a foamed sheet having vertically long cells extending in the thickness direction. A ratio of the diameter D (corresponding to Dx) of the bubbles in the plane direction of the foam sheet to the length L (corresponding to Dy) in the thickness direction D/L is preferably 0.8 or less (i.e. Dy/Dx ≥ 1.25), more preferably 0.6 or less (i.e., Dy/Dx ≥ 1.67). Oshima further teaches diameter D may be 2 μm to 4 mm, and the length L may be 3 μm to 4 mm [0014-0017].
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 the cleaning body of Kano such that
in the cells, a ratio Dy/Dx of an average cell diameter Dy in a radial direction of the core to an average cell diameter Dx in a width direction of the foam elastic layer is equal to or greater than 1.2 and equal to or less than 2.1,
wherein the average cell diameter Dx in the width direction of the foam elastic layer is equal to or greater than 120 mm and equal to or less than 210 mm
for at least the purpose of improving a cleaning ability of the foam elastic layer (Oshima: [0015])
Kano-’058 in view of Oshima appear silent about the number of the tip portions per unit area on the contact surface of the foam elastic layer with the body to be cleaned.
Iwasaki discloses a cleaning body comprising a core 21 and a foam elastic layer 22 that is disposed by winding a strip-shaped foam elastic member around an outer peripheral surface of the core in a helical shape from one end to the other end of the core (Fig.3A), wherein the foam elastic layer has cells and a cell skeleton that is a partition wall present between the cells, the cell skeleton has a tip portion 32 protruding on a contact surface of the foam elastic layer with a body to be cleaned 3 (Figs. 5-7 & 9). Iwasaki further teaches the density tip portions as a result effective variable in terms of cleaning performance (col. 9 lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to discover the optimum or workable range of the number of the tip portions per unit area on the contact surface of the foam elastic layer with the body to be cleaned, as a recognized result-effective variable, by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8, the combination above further renders obvious:
(claim 2) The cleaning body according for an image forming apparatus to claim 1, wherein the ratio Dy/Dx is equal to or greater than 1.4 and equal to or less than 1.8 (Oshima: [0017]).
(claim 4) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the average cell diameter Dx in the width direction of the foam elastic layer is equal to or greater than 150 mm and equal to or less than 180 mm (Oshima: [0017]).
(claim 6) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the average cell diameter Dy in the radial direction of the core is equal to or greater than 250 mm and equal to or less than 350 mm (Oshima: [0017]).
(claim 8) By the same optimization motivation as in claim 1, Kano-’058 in view of Oshima and Iwasaki further render obvious the claimed subject matter.
(claim 9) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the diameter of the tip portion is equal to or greater than 35 mm and equal to or less than 45 mm (Kano-’058: col.11 lines 45-49).
(claim 17) By the same optimization motivation as in claim 1, Kano-’058 in view of Oshima and Iwasaki further render obvious the claimed subject matter.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,719,027 to Kano et al. (herein forward Kano-’027) in view of JP 2011-098426 to Oshima.
Kano-’027 teaches:
(claim 1) A cleaning body 100 for an image forming apparatus comprising:
a core 100A; and
a foam elastic layer 100B that is disposed by winding a strip-shaped foam elastic member around an outer peripheral surface of the core in a helical shape from one end to the other end of the core (Fig.5),
wherein the foam elastic layer has cells and a cell skeleton that is a partition wall present between the cells, the cell skeleton has a tip portion (nodal section) protruding on a contact surface of the foam elastic layer with a body to be cleaned, and a diameter of the tip portion is equal to or less than 50 mm (the diameter of a circumscribed circle of the tip portion (the triangle of width W) in Fig. 13 is interpreted is a diameter of the tip portion, col. 11 lines 19-25).
(claim 9) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the diameter of the tip portion is equal to or greater than 35 mm and equal to or less than 45 mm (col.11 lines 19-25).
(claim 14) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a helical angle at which a longitudinal direction of the foam elastic layer crosses an axial direction of the core is greater than 15˚and equal to or less than 45˚ (col.9 lines 13-19).
(claim 15) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the helical angle is greater than 18˚and equal to or less than 40˚(col.9 lines 13-19).
(claim 16) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the helical angle is greater than 20˚and equal to or less than 35˚(col.9 lines 13-19).
Kano-’027 appears silent about a ratio Dy/Dx as claimed.
Oshima teaches a polishing pad (i.e., cleaning body) including a polishing layer 10 formed of a foamed sheet having vertically long cells extending in the thickness direction. A ratio of the diameter D (corresponding to Dx) of the bubbles in the plane direction of the foam sheet to the length L (corresponding to Dy) in the thickness direction D/L is preferably 0.8 or less (i.e. Dy/Dx ≥ 1.25), more preferably 0.6 or less (i.e., Dy/Dx ≥ 1.67). Oshima further teaches diameter D may be 2 μm to 4 mm, and the length L may be 3 μm to 4 mm [0014-0017].
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 the cleaning body of Kano-’027 such that
in the cells, a ratio Dy/Dx of an average cell diameter Dy in a radial direction of the core to an average cell diameter Dx in a width direction of the foam elastic layer is equal to or greater than 1.2 and equal to or less than 2.1,
wherein the average cell diameter Dx in the width direction of the foam elastic layer is equal to or greater than 120 mm and equal to or less than 210 mm
for at least the purpose of improving a cleaning ability of the foam elastic layer (Oshima: [0015]).
Kano-’027 in view of Oshima appear silent about the number of the tip portions per unit area on the contact surface of the foam elastic layer with the body to be cleaned. However, Kano-’027 discloses the number of cells of the elastic layer is 80 cells/25 mm to 105 cells/25 mm, and the spiral angle of the elastic layer is preferably 15° to 65° from the viewpoint of obtaining the cleaning body having high cleaning performance for the body to be cleaned (col. 11 lines 9-18). Since the number of tip portions per unit area is directly related to the number of cells and the spiral angle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to discover the optimum or workable range of the number of the tip portions per unit area on the contact surface of the foam elastic layer with the body to be cleaned, as a recognized result-effective variable, by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8, the combination above further renders obvious:
(claim 2) The cleaning body according for an image forming apparatus to claim 1, wherein the ratio Dy/Dx is equal to or greater than 1.4 and equal to or less than 1.8 (Oshima: [0017]).
(claim 4) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the average cell diameter Dx in the width direction of the foam elastic layer is equal to or greater than 150 mm and equal to or less than 180 mm (Oshima: [0017]).
(claim 6) The cleaning body for an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the average cell diameter Dy in the radial direction of the core is equal to or greater than 250 mm and equal to or less than 350 mm (Oshima: [0017]).
(claim 8) By the same optimization motivation as in claim 1, Kano-’027 in view of Oshima further render obvious the claimed subject matter.
(claim 17) By the same optimization motivation as in claim 1, Kano-’027 in view of Oshima further render obvious the claimed subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 regarding claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants point to the features of claim 1 that they believe to be allowable and state that the cited art fails to teach these features. The Office respectfully disagrees and the rejection has been presented above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Iwasaki recognizes the density of nodes (projections) as directly impacting cleaning performance and there is nothing in the cited references teaching away from the combination. Moreover, Iwasaki explicitly discloses one or more cleaning bodies can be used (col.12 lines 51-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,513,007 discloses a porous polishing pad, controlling the polishing performance by adjusting the thickness, specific gravity, surface hardness, tensile strength, elongation, AFM elastic modulus, and pore size of the polishing pad. Since an area in direct contact with the object to be polished is appropriately adjusted, the object can be efficiently polished.
US 7,263,308 discloses a cleaning member for an image forming apparatus comprising a core and a foam elastic layer; the cleaning capability of the cleaning member can be optimized by controlling a contact area with the cleaning target.
US 9,639,020 discloses a cleaning member, which includes a shaft portion and an elastic layer helically disposed on an outer circumferential surface of the shaft portion; cleaning performance of the cleaning member is deteriorated if contact area with the object to be cleaned is not ensured.
US 8,086,132 discloses a charge roller wiper, for photoconductor unit for forming a toner image in an image forming device, composed of a foam material; effective cleaning of the charge roller depends upon factors such as a surface area of contact of the charge roller wiper with the charge roller, a cleaning force applied by the charge roller wiper on the charge roller, and a capacity of the charge roller wiper to retain contamination.
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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights