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. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: CLEANING UNIT WITH INCLINED SURFACE CONTACTING A ROTATOR WITH A RECESS.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamijo et al. (US 2010/0266318).
With respect to claim 1, Kamijo et al. disclose rotation device comprising: a rotator (e.g., item 61) that includes a recessed portion (e.g., item 63) formed on an outer circumferential surface and that rotates in a predetermined rotation direction (as shown at least by the rotational arrow of item 61 in fig. 1); a removing unit (e.g., fig. 1, item(s) 85 and/or 62) that comes into contact with a portion of the outer circumferential surface in a range from an upstream end to a downstream end of the recessed portion (63) in the rotation direction due to rotation of the rotator (61) and that removes a foreign substance that adheres to the outer circumferential surface (as shown at least by fig. 1); an application unit (e.g., item(s) 86, 85, 62a and/or 62) that applies an inward load to the removing unit inward in a radial direction of the rotator (61, as shown at least by fig. 1); and an inclined surface (e.g., inclined surface of the blade) that is located at the removing unit (85 and/or 62) or the upstream end and that comes into contact with the other of the removing unit or the upstream end to move the removing unit entering the recessed portion due to the inward load outward in the radial direction of the rotator along with rotation of the rotator (as shown at least by fig. 1).
With respect to claim 2. The rotation device according to claim 1, wherein the inclined surface (inclined surface of the blade) is located at the removing unit (85 and/or 62).
With respect to claim 3, Kamijo et al. further disclose wherein the removing unit (e.g., blade 85 and/or 62) does not rotate, and wherein the inclined surface is a contact surface of the removing unit that comes into contact with the portion in the range (as shown at least by fig. 1).
With respect to claim 7, Kamijo et al. further disclose wherein the recessed portion (63) contains a holding member (e.g. “transfer material grip members 64”) that holds a recording medium (e.g., “transfer material S”), and wherein as for the rotator, the recording medium (S) that is held by the holding member is located on the outer circumferential surface in the range (as shown at least by fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Kamijo et al. disclose a rotation device comprising: a rotator (e.g., item 61) that includes a recessed portion (e.g., item 63) formed on an outer circumferential surface and that rotates in a predetermined rotation direction (as shown at least by the rotational arrow of item 61 in fig. 1); removing means (e.g., fig. 1, item(s) 85 and/or 62) for coming into contact with a portion of the outer circumferential surface in a range from an upstream end to a downstream end of the recessed portion (63) in the rotation direction due to rotation of the rotator (61) and for removing a foreign substance that adheres to the outer circumferential surface (as shown at least by fig. 1); means for applying an inward load (e.g., item(s) 86, 85, 62a and/or 62) to the removing means inward in a radial direction of the rotator (61, as shown at least by fig. 1); and an inclined surface (e.g., inclined surface of the blade) that is located at the removing means (85 and/or 62) or the upstream end and that comes into contact with the other of the removing means or the upstream end to move the removing means entering the recessed portion due to the inward load outward in the radial direction of the rotator along with rotation of the rotator (as shown at least by fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera et al. (US 2021/0325805) in view of Kamijo et al. (US 2010/0266318).
With respect to claim 8, Kodera et al. disclose a fixing device (e.g., item(s) 68 and/or 69) that serves as a rotation device, the fixing device comprising: a fixing unit (68 and/or 69) that fixes an image on the recording medium (P) to the recording medium (P) with the recording medium that is located on the outer circumferential surface in the range being interposed between the fixing unit and the rotator (as shown at least by fig. 1).
With further respect to claim 8, Kodera et al. does not disclose the rotation device according to claim 7 because Kodera does not disclose the removing unit of claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include the removing unit of Kamijo et al. with the rotation device of Kodera at least because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in removing debris from the rotator.
With respect to claim 9, Kodera further discloses an image forming apparatus (e.g., fig. 1) comprising: an image forming unit (e.g., item 14) that forms an image on the recording medium (P); and the fixing device according to claim 8 (as discussed above) that fixes the image that is formed by the image forming unit (14) to the recording medium (P).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claimed a contact load of the contact surface in the range at a downstream portion in the rotation direction is larger than that at an upstream portion in the rotation direction, in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in the claims including all intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8457. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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 L Lindsay Jr. 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.
/JOSEPH S WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
JSW