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.
[AltContent: textbox (NOTE: The term “total pressure”, recited in claims 1 and 20, is interpreted to mean pressing force in view of paragraphs [0045], [0075], [0152], [0153], and [0155] of the specification. The term “total pressure” is not used to indicate a physical quantity of pressure (e.g., measured in Pascals), but a physical quantity of force (e.g., measured in Newtons).)]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) with their disclosed structure in parentheses, is/are: an image forming portion (image forming unit 1e) in claim 1.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends on a cancelled claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purpose of examination over prior art, this claim is interpreted as dependent on claim 1.
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) 1-9, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/018854 to Ishizuka et al. in view of US 8,838,014 to Matsue et al., US 8,594,551 to Nonaka et al. and US 2011/0286778 to Kwarta et al.
Ishizuka teaches:
(claim 1) An image forming apparatus (FIG.2) comprising:
an image forming portion (10K, 10C, 10M, 10Y, 10T) configured to (1) form an image on a sheet (P) by supplying printing toner and (2) apply powder adhesive (8T) onto the sheet [0294-0299];
a fixing device (28) including (1) a fixing film (i.e., belt) configured to rotate, (2) a fixing heater configured to be in contact with an inner surface of the fixing film and to heat the fixing film, and (3) a pressing roller that is configured to form a nip portion between the fixing film and the pressing roller, the fixing device being configured to perform a fixing process in which the fixing device fixes the image and the powder adhesive to the sheet by heating and pressing the sheet while nipping and conveying the sheet in the nip portion [0273-0274, 0308-0309]; and
a bonding device (230) including a heating member configured to move in a thickness direction of a plurality of sheets stacked after the fixing process (231 and 232 push each other), the bonding device being configured to perform a bonding process in which the bonding device bonds the plurality of sheets to each other with the powder adhesive by using the heating member to heat and press the plurality of sheets [0276-0284, 0289], (ii) the heating member being configured to be brought into contact with one of the plurality of sheets in the bonding process, and (iii) having a shape elongated in a longitudinal direction;
a stacker on which the plurality of sheets is stacked (superimposed is understood as both, stacked and aligned, [280-281, 0288-0289]); and
an aligner configured to align the plurality of sheets stacked on the stacker,
wherein P1 < P2 is satisfied, where P1 (MPa) is a peak value of pressure received by the sheet in the fixing process, and P2 (MPa) is a peak value of pressure received by the sheet in the bonding process [0273, 0309];
(claim 2) wherein the image forming apparatus is configured such that G1 < G2 is satisfied, where G1 (Pa) is a storage modulus of the powder adhesive in the fixing process, and G2 (Pa) is a storage modulus of the powder adhesive in the bonding process (The disclosed apparatus of Ishizuka is deemed suitable to use such powder adhesive at least in view of the teaching of using lower bonding temperatures than fixing temperatures [0274, 0284]. See also Fig.2 of US 2013/0051886 and Abstract/Fig.6 of JP 2006-184700 cited in IDS.);
(claim 3) wherein the bonding device is configured to bond three or more sheets together by performing one round of the bonding process (See P2 in Fig.2 and pars.[0278, 0285, 0289]);
(claim 4) wherein if a first sheet is the most separated sheet from the heating member in the three or more sheets that are bonded together in the one round of the bonding process, and a second sheet is a sheet in the three or more sheets that is bonded to the first sheet with a layer of the powder adhesive, a peak temperature of the layer of the powder adhesive in the bonding process is lower than a peak temperature of the layer of the powder adhesive in the fixing process (due to lower bonding than fixing temperatures [0274, 0284]);
(claim 7) wherein the longitudinal direction of the heating member is parallel to one side of a sheet;
(claim 8) wherein the peak value P2 is equal to or higher than 0.3 MPa [0283];
(claim 9) wherein a surface temperature of the heating member in the bonding process is equal to or lower than 200°C [0284];
(claim 11) wherein the bonding device is configured such that the bonding process is capable of bonding sheets together whose Bekk smoothness is equal to or smaller than 25 seconds (The sheets are not an integral part of the claimed image forming apparatus; therefore, the claimed features do not further modify the structure of the apparatus of claim 1. The disclosed apparatus of Ishizuka is deemed suitable to use such sheets at least in view of the teaching of paragraph [0262].);
(claim 14) wherein the fixing device is configured to heat the image by using the film heated by the heat generated by the heater, while nipping and conveying the sheet in the nip portion [0273-0274];
(claim 15) further comprising: an image forming apparatus body provided with the image forming portion and the fixing device; and a post-processing apparatus provided with the bonding device , wherein the post-processing apparatus is configured to be installed on an installation surface on which the image forming apparatus body is installed [0312]; and
(claim 19) wherein the image forming portion includes a scanner (103) that emits light.
Ishizuka does not particularly teach wherein a total pressure applied to the sheet from the heating plate in the bonding process is larger than a total pressure applied to the sheet in the nip portion between the fixing film and the pressing roller in the fixing process, as recited in claim 1. Since the term “total pressure” defines a pressing force, Pressure = Force/area, and Ishizuka teaches P1 < P2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the workable range of each pressing force, as to satisfied the pressure requirements, by routine experimentation as an obvious to try variable to control pressure from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. changing an applied force, changing the nip area, or changing both), according to the specific construction of the image forming apparatus at hand.
Ishizuka differs from the claimed invention in the particulars of the bonding device and does not explicitly teach the bonding device heating member being formed from metal.
Matsue et al. teach an image forming apparatus 100B (Fig.8) comprising: a bonding device 40 including a heating plate 43 configured to move in a thickness direction of a plurality of sheets stacked after the fixing process, the bonding device being configured to perform a bonding process in which the bonding device bonds the plurality of sheets to each other with the powder adhesive by using the heating plate to heat and press the plurality of sheets, the heating plate (ii) being configured to be brought into contact with one of the plurality of sheets in the bonding process, (iii) having a plate shape elongated in a longitudinal direction, and (iv) including a protruding portion protruding in the thickness direction, wherein the protruding portion is elongated in the longitudinal direction and is the only protruding portion provided on the heating plate, and wherein when viewed in the longitudinal direction, the protruding portion includes curved portions formed on both sides of the protruding portion and curved in a predetermined curvature (Fig. 3 & 6); (see also Fig.24A-24C); wherein the bonding device further includes (1) a pressing plate configured to support end portions of the plurality of sheets stacked on the stacker, the pressing plate being configured to face the heating plate in the thickness direction (see Fig.6), (2) a bonding heater 44 configured to generate heat when energized and disposed on an opposite side from the pressing plate with respect to the heating plate in the thickness direction, the bonding heater and the heating plate being arranged in contact with each other in the thickness direction, and (3) a pressing lever (e.g., 41, Fig.3) configured to move the bonding heater and the heating plate toward the pressing plate in the thickness direction.
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 image forming apparatus of Ishizuka to include a bonding device configured as disclosed by Matsue et al. as an obvious to try configuration capable of pressing a sheet bundle with high pressure (Matsue: col. 6 lines 1-7).
Examiner assumes arguendo, without conceding, that Matsue et al. does not particularly teach t the protruding portion includes a flat portion. Kwarta et al. discloses a bonding apparatus including a protruding portion (142, Fig.6) protruding in the thickness direction, wherein the protruding portion is elongated in the longitudinal direction, and wherein when viewed in the longitudinal direction, the protruding portion includes a flat portion and curved portions formed on both sides of the flat portion and curved in a predetermined curvature. 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 a protruding portion to include a flat portion, for at least the purpose of reliably ensuring a bonding contact surface area.
Matsue et al. does not particularly teach the heating plate formed from metal. Nonaka et al. disclose a heating plate 103 as a metal plate or a plate formed of ceramic or polyimide resin (col 5 lines 60-62). 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 an image forming apparatus according to claim 1 to comprise the heating plate (i) being formed from metal as an obvious to try configuration that would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination further renders obvious:
(claim 22) The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a width of a region onto which the powder adhesive is applied is wider than a width of the protruding portion when viewed in the longitudinal direction of the heating plate (see Matsue: Fig.24c, Kwarta: Fig.6)
Regarding claim 5, Ishizuka in view of Matsue, Nonaka and Kwarta teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a region in which a sheet is pressed by the heating plate has a shape in which a length of the region in the longitudinal direction is larger than a length of the region in a lateral direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, wherein the longitudinal direction is a direction along a first edge of the sheet, and the lateral direction is a direction along a second edge of the sheet that intersects with the first edge (Matsue: Fig.14). Since Ishizuka teaches that the pressure the bonding device applies to the sheet is larger than that applied by the fixing device and Pressure = Force/area, 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 image forming apparatus of claim 1 such that the length of the region in the lateral direction is smaller than a width of the nip portion in a sheet conveyance direction as an obvious to try configuration to control pressure from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. changing an applied force, changing the nip area, or changing both), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Ishizuka in view of Matsue, Nonaka and Kwarta teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, but appears silent about an area (i.e., surface area) of a region in which the sheet is pressed by the heating plate compared to an area of a region in which the sheet is pressed in the nip portion. Since Ishizuka teaches that the pressure the bonding device applies to the sheet is larger than that applied by the fixing device and Pressure = Force/area, 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 image forming apparatus of claim 1 such that, wherein an area of a region in which the sheet is pressed by the heating plate is smaller than an area of a region in which the sheet is pressed in the nip portion as an obvious to try configuration to control pressure from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. changing an applied force, changing the nip area, or changing both), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Ishizuka in view of Matsue, Nonaka and Kwarta teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 6. Kwarta further discloses various binding edges of the sheet stack can be selectively bonded including (Fig.16). 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 an image forming apparatus according to claim 6 such that the bonding device is configured to receive the sheet conveyed in the sheet conveyance direction parallel to the longitudinal direction, wherein the region in which the sheet is pressed by the heating plate is elongated in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the region in which the sheet is pressed in the nip portion of the fixing device is elongated in a lateral direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, for at least the purpose of improving usability by enabling different binding product formats.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/018854 to Ishizuka et al. in view of US 8,838,014 to Matsue et al., US 8,594,551 to Nonaka et al. and US 2011/0286778 to Kwarta et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,343,673 to Smith et al.
Regarding claim 10, Ishizuka in view of Matsue and Nonake renders obvious an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the peak value P1 is equal to or higher than 0.1 MPa, and equal to or lower than 0.2 MPa [0273], wherein the peak value P2 is equal to or higher than 0.3 MPa [0259], and wherein the surface temperature of the heating member in the bonding process is equal to or lower than 200˚C [0284].
Ishizuka also does not expressly teach
wherein the peak value P2 is equal to or lower than 0.4 MPa, and
wherein a surface temperature of the fixing film in the fixing process is lower than a surface temperature of the heating member in the bonding process.
Smith further discloses that the operating temperatures, pressures, time cycles and other parameters used in the apparatus will depend on a number of factors, including the chemical composition of the particular toner or other adhesive used, the number of sheets in a group of sheets being bound, the thickness and type of paper used, etc. (col. 7 lines 11-18).
Thus, 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 peak value P2 and a surface temperature of the fixing film in the fixing process in relation to a surface temperature of the heating member in the bonding process as a recognized result-effective variables affecting bonding adhesion strength, by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/018854 to Ishizuka et al. in view of US 8,838,014 to Matsue et al., US 8,594,551 to Nonaka et al. and US 2011/0286778 to Kwarta et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0191297 to Yamaguchi et al.
Regarding claim 16, Ishizuka in view of Smith teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an image forming apparatus body (300) provided with the image forming portion (10K-10T) and the fixing device (28); and a post-processing apparatus (200) provided with the bonding device (230). Ishizuka does not particularly suggest the post-processing apparatus disposed above the image forming apparatus body.
Yamaguchi discloses an comprising an image forming apparatus body (10) provided with an image forming portion (1e) and a fixing portion (6); and a post-processing apparatus (30) provided with a bonding portion (32), wherein the post-processing apparatus is disposed above the image forming apparatus body (Fig.2, [0045]).
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 image forming apparatus of Ishizuka such that the post-processing apparatus is disposed above the image forming apparatus body, as suggested by Yamaguchi’s invention, for at least the purpose of minimizing the foot print of the image forming apparatus.
Contact Information
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