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.
Specification
The Title and Abstract of the application have been updated according to the amended Specification dated 07/27/2026. The objections to the Title and Abstract have been withdrawn.
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 rotating body, a heat dissipator introduced in claim 1; a heating rotating body, a pressing rotating body introduced in claims 8-14; a rotating body in claims 15-18; an image forming section introduced in claim 19; a medium adjusting device introduced in claim 20.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 requires:
a rotating body
a heat dissipator
a sliding member
Claim 8 additionally requires:
a heating rotating body
a pressing rotating body
a recording medium
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites inter alia “a fixing device comprising (…) a pressing rotating body (…) wherein a structure that cools the pressing rotating body is the rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1”. Since claim 1 recites “a rotating body”, a configuration in which the newly recited pressing rotating body and the previously recited rotating body are two distinct elements, as the claim construction permits (see table below), is not described in the specification.
The same issue prompts the rejection of claims 9-14 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 8-20 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 inter alia “a fixing device comprising (…) a pressing rotating body (…) wherein a structure that cools the pressing rotating body is the rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1”. Since claim 1 recites “a rotating body”, it is unclear if these rotating bodies are distinct or a same element. The same issue prompts the rejection of claims 9-14 and 19. For the purpose of examination over prior art, this limitation is interpreted as referring to a same rotating body.
Claim 15 recites inter alia “a medium adjustment device comprising (…) a rotating body (…) wherein a structure that cools the rotating body is the rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1”. Since claim 1 also recites “a rotating body”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same issue prompts the rejection of claims 16-18 and 20. For the purpose of examination over prior art, this limitation is interpreted as referring to a same rotating body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-14, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2008-152045 to Kakishima et al.
Kakishima teaches:
(claim 1) A rotating-body cooling structure for an image forming apparatus, the rotating-body cooling structure (Fig.2) comprising: a rotating body (62) that increases in temperature as a result of receiving heat from an outside; and a heat dissipator (81Pa, Fig.5) that is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the rotating body with a sliding member (81B) interposed therebetween.
(claim 2) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipator has a circular-arc-shaped curved portion (81Pd) and allows the curved portion to be in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the rotating body [0037].
(claim 3) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 2, wherein the curved portion has a curvature radius that is equal to a radius of the rotating body or that is slightly larger than the radius (Fig.2, [0035]).
(claim 4) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipator has a tabular base and a plurality of radiator plates (81F) arranged at one face of the base, and wherein the plurality of radiator plates are each provided to extend in a direction intersecting an axial direction of the rotating body (at least due to being three-dimensional, Fig.5).
(claim 5) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1, further comprising: an air blower (84) that blows air, wherein the air blower blows the air onto the heat dissipator (Fig.5).
(claim 6) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 5, wherein the heat dissipator has a tabular base and a plurality of radiator plates (81F) arranged at one face of the base, and wherein the plurality of radiator plates are each provided to extend in a direction intersecting an axial direction of the rotating body (at least due to being three-dimensional, Fig.5).
(claim 7) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 5, wherein the air blower (84) blows the air onto an area of the outer peripheral surface of the rotating body, the area being adjacent to the heat dissipator (Fig.5).
(claims 8-14) A fixing device (60, Fig.2) comprising: a heating rotating body (61) that has a heater (616a); and a pressing rotating body (62) that is in contact with the heating rotating body while applying pressure thereto and that forms a fixing section (N) through which a recording medium (P) retaining an unfixed image passes, wherein a structure that cools the pressing rotating body is the rotating-body cooling structure according to any of claims 1-7.
(claim 19) An image forming apparatus (1, Fig.1) comprising: an image forming section that forms an unfixed image and transfers the unfixed image onto a recording medium (P); and a fixing device (60) that fixes the unfixed image transferred at the image forming section onto the recording medium, wherein the fixing device includes the fixing device according to claim 8.
(claim 21) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the sliding member is a sheet-like member [0034] attached to the heat dissipator [0037].
(claim 22) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 21, wherein the sliding member is composed of fluorine-based resin (PFA, [0034]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006-178119 to Komori.
Komori teaches:
(claim 1) A rotating-body cooling structure for an image forming apparatus, the rotating-body cooling structure (Fig.2b) comprising: a rotating body (13) that increases in temperature as a result of receiving heat from an outside; and a heat dissipator (15/43, by contact heat transfer) that is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the rotating body with a sliding member (15b/43b) interposed therebetween.
(claim 2) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the heat dissipator has a circular-arc-shaped curved portion and allows the curved portion to be in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the rotating body (Fig.2b/Fig.7b).
(claim 3) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 2, wherein the curved portion has a curvature radius that is equal to a radius of the rotating body or that is slightly larger than the radius (Fig.2b/Fig.7b).
(claims 8-10) A fixing device (11/41) comprising: a heating rotating body (12) that has a heater (16); and a pressing rotating body (13) that is in contact with the heating rotating body while applying pressure thereto and that forms a fixing section (N) through which a recording medium (21) retaining an unfixed image (T) 3passes, wherein a structure that cools the pressing rotating body is the rotating-body cooling structure according to any of claims 1-3.
(claim 19) An image forming apparatus (1, Fig.1) comprising: an image forming section (2) that forms an unfixed image and transfers the unfixed image (T) onto a recording medium (21); and a fixing device (11) that fixes the unfixed image transferred at the image forming section onto the recording medium, wherein the fixing device includes the fixing device according to claim 8.
(claim 21) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 1, wherein the sliding member is a sheet-like member attached to the heat dissipator (Fig. 2a/Fig.7b).
(claim 23) The rotating-body cooling structure according to claim 21, wherein the sliding member is secured to the heat dissipator by thermal compression bonding or adhesive-based bonding (page 8, page 9).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008-152045 to Kakishima et al. in view of US 2012/0328323 to Murooka.
Regarding claims 15-18, Examiner assumes arguendo that Kakishima does not disclose a medium adjusting device (e,g., decurler, glosser). Murooka discloses rotating-body cooling structure (51+40) used in an image heating device for an image forming apparatus and further discloses the invention is applicable to a fixing unit or a gloss imparting unit [0098]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the include the rotating-body cooling structure according to claims 1-4 above, in a medium adjustment device comprising: a rotating body that allows a recording medium increased in temperature to pass while being in contact therewith so as to adjust the recording medium, as a structure that cools the rotating body, as a as art recognized application of the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the resulting configuration also renders obvious an image forming apparatus comprising: a medium adjustment device that allows a recording medium increased in temperature to pass through a rotating body while being in contact therewith so as to adjust the recording medium, wherein the medium adjustment device includes the medium adjustment device according to claim 15.
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006-178119 to Komori in view of US 2012/0328323 to Murooka.
Regarding claims 15-18, Examiner assumes arguendo that Komori does not disclose a medium adjusting device (e,g., decurler, glosser). Murooka discloses rotating-body cooling structure (51+40) used in an image heating device for an image forming apparatus and further discloses the invention is applicable to a fixing unit or a gloss imparting unit [0098]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the include the rotating-body cooling structure according to any of claims 1-3 above, in a medium adjustment device comprising: a rotating body that allows a recording medium increased in temperature to pass while being in contact therewith so as to adjust the recording medium, as a structure that cools the rotating body, as a as art recognized application of the disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the resulting configuration also renders obvious an image forming apparatus comprising: a medium adjustment device that allows a recording medium increased in temperature to pass through a rotating body while being in contact therewith so as to adjust the recording medium, wherein the medium adjustment device includes the medium adjustment device according to claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues element 81B of Kakishima is not a “sliding member” because it “revolves” around the heat absorption pad. One skilled in the art would understand that element 81B slides at least with respect to pressing surface 81Pd, hence a “sliding member”.
Conclusion
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.
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
