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 .
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 3, 5, 12 and 14 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 3 recites “wherein a number-average particle size of the fillers is 0.5 μm or more and 10 μm or less” while claim 5 (which depends upon claim 3) recites that “the number-average particle size of the fillers is 15 μm or more and 40 μm or less.” Since claim 5 is dependent upon claim 3, and claims 3 and 5 recite different number-average particle sizes, these claims are considered indefinite because it is not possible to satisfy both ranges and it is not clear which number-average particle size range is intended.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nemoto et al. (US 2010/0272989).
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Nemoto et al. disclose a molded article (as discussed at least in paragraph(s) 111 and/or 120) comprising: a composition comprising: at least one or more thermal conductive fillers (as discussed at least in paragraph 101); and a resin or rubber (as discussed at least in paragraphs 73-74), wherein the fillers have a shape factor SF1 of 120 or more and 400 or less (as shown at least by figs. 13-24 and/or as discussed at least in paragraphs 130-139) and a shape factor SF2 of 140 or more and 325 or less (as shown at least by figs. 25-36 and/or as discussed at least in paragraphs 130-139).
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Nemoto et al. further disclose comprising: the resin (as discussed at least in paragraphs 73-74).
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Nemoto et al. further disclose comprising: the rubber (as discussed at least in paragraphs 73-74).
With respect to claims 6 and 15, Nemoto et al. further disclose wherein the composition has a thermal conductivity of 1.2 W/mK or more (as discussed at least in paragraphs 101, 109-139, and/or as shown at least by fig. 37).
With respect to claims 7 and 16, Nemoto et al. further disclose wherein a content of the fillers is 5% by volume or more and 50% by volume or less with respect to the composition (as discussed at least in paragraph(s) 109-139).
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Nemoto et al. further disclose wherein the content of the fillers is 5% by volume or more and 20% by volume or less with respect to the composition (as discussed at least in paragraph(s) 109-139).
With respect to claim 9, Nemoto et al. further disclose wherein an aspect ratio of the fillers is 6 or less (as discussed at least in paragraph(s) 85-88 and/or 126-134).
With respect to claim 18, Nemoto et al. disclose a fixing member (as discussed at least in paragraphs 20, 65-71 and/or 108 and/or as shown at least by fig. 37) comprising: a substrate layer; and an elastic layer provided on the substrate layer (as discussed at least in paragraph 108), wherein at least one of the substrate layer or the elastic layer contains the composition according to claim 1 (as discussed at least in paragraphs 108-139).
With respect to claim 19, Nemoto et al. disclose a fixing device (as shown at least by fig. 37) comprising: a first rotary member (e.g., “fixing roller” and/or “fixing belt”); and a second rotary member (e.g., “pressure roller” and/or “fixing belt”) that is arranged in contact with an outer surface of the first rotary member, wherein at least one of the first rotary member or the second rotary member is the fixing member according to claim 18 (as discussed at least in paragraphs 20, 65-71 and/or 108 and/or as shown at least by fig. 37).
With respect to claim 20, Nemoto et al. disclose an image forming apparatus comprising: an image holder; a charging device that charges a surface of the image holder; an electrostatic latent image forming device that forms an electrostatic latent image on the charged surface of the image holder; a developing device that develops the electrostatic latent image formed on the surface of the image holder with a toner to form a toner image; a transfer device that transfers the toner image formed on the surface of the image holder to a recording medium; and the fixing device according to claim 19 that fixes the toner image to the recording medium (as discussed at least in paragraphs 20, 65-71 and/or 108 and/or as shown at least by fig. 37).
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) 3, 5, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (US 2010/0272989) in view of Sugawara et al. (US 2014/0199102).
With respect to claims 3, 5, 12 and 14, Nemoto et al. disclose the composition according to claim 1, but are silent with regards to the particle size and thus do not disclose wherein the number-average particle size of the fillers is 15 μm or more and 40 μm or less.
With further respect to claims 3, 5, 12 and 14, Sugawara et al. teach a fixing member wherein the number-average particle size of the fillers is 15 μm or more and 40 μm or less (as discussed at least in paragraph(s) 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the filler size of Sugawara et al. for the filler of Nemoto et al. at least because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in achieving fixation.
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
Prosecution Insights