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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: C (page 13, paragraph [0066], line 2, etc.). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: W1, W2 (Fig. 4), C1, C2, C3, L4, L5, 49, 456, and 468 (Fig. 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pressurizing means” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 8-9 and 17-18 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 8 recites the limitation "the regulating section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is considered to be indefinite because there is no proper antecedent basis for “the regulating section” (line 2).
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) 1-5, 10-14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamaki (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2011/0305473 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tamaki discloses a fixing device 6 comprising: an endless belt 11 of which a surface layer is elastically deformable (paragraph [0046]), and a pressurizing section 20 that is in pressure contact with the belt 11 and that forms a nip portion N, wherein a maximum deformation position 13A at which a degree of deformation of a surface of the belt 11 is maximal is set to a position different from a maximum pressure position (nip portion) N at which a pressurizing force of the belt 11 is maximal (Figs. 3(b) and 7).
Regarding claim 2, Tamaki further discloses: a regulating section 13A that regulates a traveling position of the belt 11 such that the maximum deformation position at which the degree of deformation of the surface of the belt 11 is maximum is made different from the maximum pressure position N at which the pressuring force of the belt 11 is maximal (Figs. 3(b) and 7).
Regarding claim 3, Tamaki discloses wherein the regulating section 13A regulates the traveling position of the belt 11 such that the maximum deformation position of the surface of the belt 11 is made closer to an outer side than an outlet of the nip portion N (Figs. 3(b) and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Tamaki discloses wherein the regulating section 13A includes an abutment portion 13A that abuts against an inner surface of the belt 11 outside the outlet of the nip portion N to regulate the traveling position of the belt 11 such that the belt 11 is deformed in a direction opposite to a direction of deformation at the outlet of the nip portion N (Figs. 3(b) and 7).
Regarding claim 5, Tamaki discloses wherein the belt 11 includes the maximum pressure position N ahead of an outlet of the nip portion N (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 10-14, Tamaki discloses an image forming apparatus 100 comprising: an image forming section Sa that forms an image on a recording medium P (paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and Fig. 1); and a fixing section 6 that fixes the image on the recording medium P, wherein the fixing device 6 is used as the fixing section 6 (paragraphs [0045] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 19, Tamaki discloses a fixing device 6 comprising: an endless belt 11 of which a surface layer is elastically deformable (paragraph [0046]), and a pressurizing means 20 for forming a nip portion N, the pressuring means 20 being in pressure contact with the belt 11, wherein a maximum deformation position 13A at which a degree of deformation of a surface of the belt 11 is maximal is set to a position different from a maximum pressure position N at which a pressurizing force of the belt 11 is maximal (Figs. 3(b) and 7).
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 6-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tamaki in view of Koyanagi et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2024/0142902 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Tamaki, as discussed above, further comprises an IH coil heater 31. Tamaki differs from the instant claimed invention in not disclosing (as in claim 6) a planar heat-generating element that is in pressure contract with the pressurizing section via the belt, wherein an end portion of the planar heat-generating element that is on a downstream side in movement direction of the belt is in pressure contact with the pressurizing section so that the maximum pressure position is formed, and (as in claim 7) wherein the regulating section also serves as a holding section that holds the planar heat-generating element.
Koyanagi et al. discloses a fixing device 40 comprising: an endless belt 42; a pressurizing section 43 that is in pressure contact with the belt 42 and that forms a nip portion N (Fig. 2); and a planar heat-generating element 45 that is in pressure contact with the pressurizing section 43 via the belt 42 (Fig. 2); and a regulating section 464 that regulates a traveling position of the belt 42 (Fig. 2) and also serves as a holding section that holds the planar heat-generating element 45 (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to apply the planar heat-generating element and the holding section as taught by Koyanagi et al. in place of the IH coil heater of Tamaki because of the same functionality for heating the endless belt to fix the image on the recording medium. By adding the planar heat-generating element to the regulating section 13 of Tamaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to know the heat-generating element is held by the regulating section.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 8 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “the regulating section includes a non-contact region”.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2017/0248885 A1) discloses a fixing device comprising: an endless belt; a heating lamp; a pressurizing section; and a regulating section.
Onaka (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2019/0310573 A1) discloses a fixing device comprising: an endless belt; a heating lamp; a pressurizing section; and a regulating section.
Matsuo (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2019/0324391 A1) discloses a fixing device comprising: an endless belt; a heating lamp; a pressurizing section; and a regulating section.
Yamaguchi et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2022/0291613 A1) discloses a fixing device comprising: an endless belt; a heating lamp; a pressurizing section; and a regulating section.
Yamamoto et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2022/0390884 A1) discloses a fixing device comprising: an endless belt; a heating source being either an infrared heater, a heating resistor, or an induction heater; a pressurizing section; and a regulating section.
Ishihara et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2024/0103413 A1) discloses a fixing device comprising: an endless belt; a heating lamp; a pressurizing section; and a regulating section.
Shibuya (US Pat. Pub. No. US 2024/0160138 A1) discloses a fixing device comprising: an endless belt; a heating lamp; a pressurizing section; and a regulating section.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/SOPHIA S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Ssc
January 26, 2026