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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 19 May 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein and lined through has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“or stepwise decreases” of claims 2-3;
“a difference between the diameter at the upstream end in the rotation direction and the diameter at the downstream portion is larger than the first engagement depth” of claim 3;
“or stepwise decreases” of claim 5;
“or stepwise decreases” of claim 6;
“a separatable body that is separably provided on the cylinder” of claim 7.
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it merely consists of a run-on sentence without regard for proper grammatical form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) is/are:
“a rotator” in claim 1;
“a contact unit” in claim 1;
“a wound portion” in claim 4;
“a separatable body” of claim 7;
“a holding member” of claim 8;
“an image forming unit” of claim 11;
“an image forming unit” of claim 12;
“a rotator” in claim 13.
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(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 1-12 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 1 defines a portion that comes into contact with the contact unit as a range from “an upstream end to a downstream end of the recessed portion” in the rotation direction. This is unclear in and of itself because it reads as if the range is defined as the recessed portion and defining the portion to be contacted being within the recessed portion. On the contrary, from the specification, it appears as though, in the rotation direction, the portion to be contacted is intended to range from the downstream end of the recessed portion to the upstream end of the recessed portion, following the rotation direction.
In addition, the claim then goes on to define the contact surface as “formed at an upstream end portion in the range in the rotation direction”. It is unclear what is meant by “an upstream end portion in the range” at least due to the indefiniteness of the initial range definition discussed above. It is also unclear because it does not positively define the “upstream end portion” as being an upstream end portion of the “a portion” that is contacted by the contact unit and the wording most closely aligns with the upstream end of the recessed portion. As such, this claim wording causes confusion and indefiniteness as to what structural relationships are particularly being claimed.
Claim 13 is 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 13 defines a portion that comes into contact with the contact means as a range from “an upstream end to a downstream end of the recessed portion” in the rotation direction. This is unclear in and of itself because it reads as if the range is defined as the recessed portion and defining the portion to be contacted being within the recessed portion. On the contrary, from the specification, it appears as though, in the rotation direction, the portion to be contacted is intended to range from the downstream end of the recessed portion to the upstream end of the recessed portion, following the rotation direction.
In addition, the claim then goes on to define the contact surface as “formed at an upstream end portion in the range in the rotation direction”. It is unclear what is meant by “an upstream end portion in the range” at least due to the indefiniteness of the initial range definition discussed above. It is also unclear because it does not positively define the “upstream end portion” as being an upstream end portion of the “a portion” that is contacted by the contact means and the wording most closely aligns with the upstream end of the recessed portion. As such, this claim wording causes confusion and indefiniteness as to what structural relationships are particularly being claimed.
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 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device (fig.1&5, #131) comprising: a rotator (fig.1, #3) that includes a recessed portion formed on an outer circumferential surface (fig.1, recess with #8 and #6 therein) and that rotates in a predetermined rotation direction (fig.1&5, direction #C); a contact unit that comes into contact with a portion of the outer circumferential surface (fig.5, #101 and/or #127) in a range from an upstream end to a downstream end of the recessed portion in the rotation direction at a predetermined engagement depth (fig.1, #101 from fig.5 would come in contact with #1/#2 from #B, clockwise to #A); and a contact surface (fig.1, portion of #1 below range indicator #A) that is formed at an upstream end portion in the range in the rotation direction (fig.1, #A is at the upstream end of #1/#2 and #B is the downstream end thereof) and that comes into contact with the contact unit at a second engagement depth less than a first engagement depth at a portion downstream of the upstream end portion (fig.1, portion of #1 below #A is at a slightly smaller diameter than at #1/#2 and therefore this limitation would be met since spacing between #101/#127 and #131 is maintained by fig.7, #139; col.5, ln.64-col.6, ln.6).
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein the contact surface is formed such that a diameter of the rotator from a rotation center gradually or stepwise decreases in a direction toward an upstream portion in the rotation direction (fig.1, see gradual change from #1/#2 to #1 on #8 in range #A).
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein the rotator includes a rotator body that includes the recessed portion formed on a cylindrical surface (fig.1, #3 with recess at #6/#8) and that rotates in the predetermined rotation direction (fig.1, #C direction), and a wound portion that is wound around the cylindrical surface in the range and that has the contact surface (fig.1, #1/#2).
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein as for the wound portion, a distance between an outer circumferential surface of the wound portion and the cylindrical surface gradually or stepwise decreases in a direction toward an upstream portion in the rotation direction in a region in which the contact surface is formed (fig.1, see distance change in region #A from #1 to #3).
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein a diameter of the rotator body gradually or stepwise decreases in a direction toward an upstream portion in the rotation direction in a region in which the contact surface is formed (fig.1, see distance change in region #A from #1 to #3).
Regarding claim 7, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein the rotator body includes a cylinder that includes the recessed portion on a cylindrical surface (fig.1, #3 with recess at #6/#8) and that rotates in the predetermined rotation direction (fig.1, #C direction), and a separatable body that is separably provided on the cylinder in the region in which the contact surface is formed (fig.1, #8 in region #A), a part of the wound portion on which the contact surface is formed being mounted on the separatable body (fig.1, #1 on #8; col.6, ln.3-5).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein the recessed portion contains a holding member that holds a recording medium (fig.1, #5/#6; col.5, ln.21-22).
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein the rotator transfers an image to the recording medium with the recording medium that is held by the holding member interposed between the rotator and the contact unit (fig.5, see #101ƒ col.5, ln.10-39).
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device wherein the contact unit is a removing unit that removes a foreign substance that adheres to the outer circumferential surface (fig.5, #127).
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.5) comprising: the rotation device according to claim 8 (see rejection herein); and an image forming unit that forms an image to be transferred to the recording medium (fig.5, #101, #103, & #104).
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.5) comprising: the rotation device according to claim 9 (see rejection herein); and an image forming unit that forms an image to be transferred to the recording medium (fig.5, #101, #103, & #104).
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi et al. (US 6,151,477) teach a rotation device (fig.1&5, #131) comprising: a rotator (fig.1, #3) that includes a recessed portion formed on an outer circumferential surface (fig.1, recess with #8 and #6 therein) and that rotates in a predetermined rotation direction (fig.1&5, direction #C); contact means for coming into contact with a portion of the outer circumferential surface (fig.5, #101) in a range from an upstream end to a downstream end of the recessed portion in the rotation direction at a predetermined engagement depth (fig.1, #101 from fig.5 would come in contact with #1/#2 from #B, clockwise to #A); and a contact surface (fig.1, portion of #1 below range indicator #A) that is formed at an upstream end portion in the range in the rotation direction (fig.1, #A is at the upstream end of #1/#2 and #B is the downstream end thereof) and that comes into contact with the contact means at a second engagement depth less than a first engagement depth at a portion downstream of the upstream end portion (fig.1, portion of #1 below #A is at a slightly smaller diameter than at #1/#2 and therefore this limitation would be met since spacing between #101 and #131 is maintained by fig.7, #139; col.5, ln.64-col.6, ln.6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “the contact surface is formed such that a difference between the diameter at the upstream end in the rotation direction and the diameter at the downstream portion is larger than the first engagement depth” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baba et al. (US Pub.2022/0097426) is a related case that comprises a separable member to which an end of the wound member is mounted.
Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2022/0075294) is a related case cited due to relational relevance.
Yoshioka et al. (US Pub.2022/0082979) is a related case that discloses a sloped contact surface on a downstream end of the contact area and a separable member with a wound portion affixed thereto.
Yoshioka et al. (US Pub.2023/0123692) is a related case that discloses a sloped contact surface on a downstream end of the contact area and a separable member with a wound portion affixed thereto.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA K ROTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2154. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30AM-3:30 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.
/LKR/
1/22/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852