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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement previously issued inadvertently included claims 33-39 in Group I. Because claims 33-39 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 32, those claims properly accompany claim 32 in Group II.
Accordingly, the restriction requirement is corrected as follows:
Group I: claims 1-31 and 40.
Group II: claims 32-39.
Applicant elected Group I without traversed. Applicant’s election is therefore construed as an election of corrected Group I, namely claims 1-31 and 40. Claims 32-39 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to the nonelected invention. The Examine regrets any inconvenience caused by the inadvertent claim-grouping error.
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 1-31 and 40 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.
As to claims 1 and 40, the claim recites that “the at least one pressing member has a step difference feature”. However, the claim does not define the structural characteristics of the recited “step different feature” and the specification does not appear to provide sufficient clear and objective boundaries by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine what surface configurations constitute a “step different feature” and what surface configuration fall outside the scope of that terms. For example, it is unclear whether the recited “step different feature” requires a discrete step or shoulder between surfaces of different heights, whether it encompasses a gradual or rounded transition between surfaces, whether it may be formed by portions of different radii or diameters or whether any surface variation that causes the image recording medium to bend would satisfy the limitation. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed “step different feature”. Applicant is requested to amend the claim to positively recite the structural configuration intended by this term or to identify support in the originally filed specification that provides reasonably clear and objective boundaries for the term.
As to claim 2, the first pressing member lacks proper antecedent basis. Accordingly, it is unclear what “the first pressing member”, the Applicant is referring to?
As to claims 25 and 31, the claim recites “the first deformable pressed member” while claim 1 merely recites “at least one deformable pressed member”. Therefore, claim 27 lacks proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Notwithstanding the foregoing rejection, and solely for purposes of examination and application of the prior art, the Examiner interprets the recited “step difference feature” under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as encompass any identifiable variation in the surface profile of the pressing member that provide adjoining or associated surface portions having different surface levels, heights, radial positions, diameters or orientations, including a shoulder, ledge, raised portion, recessed portion, groove, offset surface, angled transition, rounded transition or similar profiled surface configuration.
The Examiner further interprets the functional language “such that the image recording medium...is bent” as requiring that, when the pressing member and the deformable pressed member are arranged and operated as claimed, the recording medium undergoes at least some departure from a straight or planar path while passing between the members. The claim does not presently specify a minimum bending angle, bending radius, displacement or amount of deformation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7, 30-31 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (U.S.Pat. 6,983,121 B2).
With respect to claims 1 and 40, Sawai discloses an image development device (see figure 3) for an image recording medium and comprising all features of the instant claims such as: at least one pressing member (6); and at least one deformable pressed member (21), the at least one pressing member and the at least one deformable pressed member configured to permit the image recording medium (100) to pass therebetween and the at least one pressing member having a step different feature (a flat portion 6a and a curved portion 6b) and configured to apply a pressure on the at least one deformable pressed member, such that the image recording medium (100) when passing between the pressing member and the deformable member is bent (see figures 7-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, as shown in figure 7, the applied pressure is positive pressure.
As to claim 3, wherein the at least one pressing member has a first pressing member (6a) and a second pressing member (6b) and the at least deformable pressed member has a first deformable member (21) and a second deformable member (7c) and the first pressing member and the second pressing member are in contact with the pressing member and the second deformable pressed member, respectively (see figures 7-8).
As to claim 4, it is apparent that the image recording medium (100) is a pressure-sensitive image recording medium.
As to claim 5, the pressured-sensitive image recording medium (100) is a radiation-sensitive, pressure-sensitive medium (see col.1, lines 18-20).
As to claim 6, the radiation-sensitive pressure-sensitive image medium (100) is a microcapsule-based photosensitive image recording medium (see col.1, lines 44-47).
As to claim 7, wherein the step different feature (6a, 6b) has one of a pressing area, a step area or a guiding out area (see col.4, lines 8-17).
As to claim 30, wherein the pressing member has a plurality of pressing members (6a, 6b) and the plurality of pressing members are arranged to be staggered.
As to claim 31, the first deformable pressed member (21) is a transporting element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai (U.S.Pat. 6,983,121).
As to claim 8, Sawai discloses that pressing member 6 has a generally flat portion 6a and a curved portion 6b that meet in the region immediately upstream of nip E. Figures 1 and 4-5 illustrate a transition between these portions and the continuation or extension of the belt surface toward nip E. It would have been obvious to define the transition between area and its extending area by an axis or line of intersection, because identifying such a geometric reference line is merely a conventional manner of describing and dimensioning the known transition surface. The claimed axis does not alter the function of the device but merely defines the geometric relationship of already-existing surfaces.
With respect to claims 9-13, the claims recite a first distance between the step area or axis and a perpendicular line extending through the axle center of the deformable pressed member, express as:
approximately 0.1-1.5 mm;
approximately 0.3-1.00 mm;
approximately 2.5-8.3 times the medium thickness;
approximately 0.01-0.2 times the roller outer diameter; or
approximately 0.04-0.13 times the roller outer diameter.
Sawai discloses that the position of the transition and medium-contact region relative to the center and nip of elastic transfer roller 21 determines the curvature of the medium path, the location at which the medium contact belt 6, the amount of bending, and the ability to maintain close contact without excessive transport resistance. Also, Sawai discloses roller diameters of approximately 30 mm, a belt radius of curvature of approximately 15 mm, and a medium-contract position approximately 3-3-mm upstream of the nip, preferably approximately 5-20 mm.
Thus, the distance between the transition region and a reference line through the roller axle was a known result-effective variable. A person of ordinary would have routinely adjusted that distance according to roller diameter, medium thickness, medium flexibility and desired curvature to provide adequate bending and stable contact. The claimed ranges represent overlapping or predictably selected subranges obtainable through routine experimentation. The claims do not recite a different operating principle or any particular unexpected result associated with the claimed numerical boundaries.
Claims 14-18 recite a second vertical distance between the guiding-out aera or axis and the pressing area, express as:
approximately 0.1-1.5 mm;
approximately 0.3-1.00 mm;
approximately 2.5-8.3 times the medium thickness;
approximately 0.01-0.2 times the roller outer diameter; or
approximately 0.04-0.13 times the roller outer diameter.
Sawai discloses a height or level difference among the medium-guiding surface, the curved belt surface, and the nip region. This relative difference causes recording medium 100 to change direction and bend while entering nip E. Sawai further teaches that excessive bending increases contact resistance and deteriorates conveyance, whereas insufficient bending permits the recording medium to separate from belt 6.
According, the vertical separation between the guiding-out region and the pressing region directly affects:
the amount of medium bending;
the force urging the medium toward belt 6;
contact resistance;
transport reliability; and
image-transfer quality.
The second distance therefore constitutes a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to determine a suitable value through routine experimentation and to scale the distance according to known parameters such as recording-medium thickness and roller diameter.
Selection of the claimed ranges would have involved nothing more than balancing the known competing considerations expressly identified by Sawai: sufficient bending to maintain close contact and limited bending to avoid excessive transport resistance.
With respect to claims 19-21, the claims recite an angle formed between the step area and guiding-out area that is: no greater than approximately 135 degrees; approximately 45-120 degrees or approximately 90 degrees. Sawai discloses that the relative angles of the guide surfaces, belt surface, reference lines, and nip determine the direction in which recording medium 100 enters the nip and the extend to which the medium is bent toward belt 6. Sawai specifically explains that the guide geometry is selected to maintain contact while avoiding excessive resistance and discloses an exemplary angular relationship between reference lines associated wit the guide members and nip. It would have been obvious to select the angle between adjoining or successive portions of the pressing and guiding surface to produce a desired degree of bending. Angles within the recited broad ranges, including approximately 90 degrees, constitute conventional geometric alternatives that would have been selected according to available space, desired bend severity, sheet stiffness, and transport requirements. Selecting an angle no greater than 135 degrees, within 45-120 degrees, or at approximately 90 degrees would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice and routine optimization, absent evidence that the claimed angular value produces a critical or unexpected result.
With respect to claims 22-24, the claims recite a rounded corner between the pressing area and the step area having a radius of curvature of: approximately 0.1 mm; approximately 0.1-0.5 mm or approximately 1-4.2 times the thickness of the recording medium. Sawai discloses that recording medium (100) is guided over a changing surface geometry and bent into contact with belt (6). A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that an abrupt or sharp transition could increase localized stress, friction, scratching, creasing or transport resistance. Rounding the transition between adjoining pressing surfaces would have been a conventional mechanical expedient to provide smooth medium travel.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai in view of Egawa (US 2014/0140746 A1).
With respect to claims 25-27, Sawai discloses elastic transfer roller (21)/deformable press member. Sawai therefore discloses deformable of an elastic pressed member in forming a pressure nip, although Swai does not expressly state the numerical amount of deformation recited in claims 25-27. Egawa discloses an imaging forming apparatus having a decurler with an elastically deformable first roller (701) and a second roller (702) that presses against and elastically deforms the first roller (701) to form a curved nip. It further recognizes nip pressure and deformation geometry as operating parameters used to control bending and transport of a sheet (see paragraphs [0045-0047]). In view of such teachings, a person of ordinary skill before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the amount of deformation of Sawai’s elastic transfer affects: nip width; applied pressure; contact stability, medium transport and the degree to which the medium follows the curved path, as suggested by Egawa. Accordingly, the amount of roller deformation would have been a result-effective variable subject to routine optimization according to the thickness and mechanical properties of the recording medium.
With respect to claim 25, in view of the teachings of Sawai and Egawa, it would have been obvious to adjust the compression or deformation of the elastic pressed member to a value within the recited broad range of approximately 0.1-1.5mm or the corresponding range based on medium thickness to obtain sufficient pressure while avoiding excessive transport resistance.
As to claim 26, the narrow range of approximately 0.3-1.0 mm represents selection of an operating range within the broader routinely optimizable deformation values. It is noted that no criticality or unexpected result is apparent from the claim language itself.
As to claim 27, expressing deformation as approximately 2.5-8.3 times the thickness of the recording medium merely states the same adjustable relationship relative to a known relevant parameter, namely medium thickness. Adjusting roller deformation according to sheet thickness would have been an obvious manner of maintaining an effective and substantially consistent pressure nip for media of different thicknesses.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kakehi (U.S.Pat. 9,229,374); Kato et al (U.S.Pat. 12,044,999) disclose image forming devices and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
7/24/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights