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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0103413 (previously cited), in view of Chiyoda et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0270868 (previously cited), and Kemmochi, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2005/0185978 (previously cited).
Claims 1, 3, and 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0103413 (previously cited), in view of Chiyoda et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0270868 (previously cited), Kemmochi, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2005/0185978 (previously cited), and Tatezawa et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0141322 (previously cited).
The elements of the rejections of former claims 1 and 6 – 8 under 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) over Ishihara et al. in the Final Office Action dated 7/23/25 are incorporated herein in their entirety with the following modifications:
Regarding independent claim 1, the amendments added on 9/9/25:
the belt is an endless belt;
the roller included in the rubbing member is a rubbing roller, and,
the belt contact region is located on a side of the stretching roller across a common external tangent line between the stretching member and the stretching roller adjacent to each other;
the amendments added on 10/23/25:
a moving unit including a motor configured to move the rubbing roller by pivoting around a pivot axis; and,
wherein, in a state where, within areas divided by a line intersecting a rotation center of the stretching roller, a rotation center of the rubbing roller, and the endless belt, where a first area is located on a downstream side with respect to the line in relation to the rotation direction of the endless belt and a second area is located on an upstream side with respect to the line, the pivot axis of the rubbing roller is located in the first area; and,
the amendments added on 3/30/26:
change a rotation direction to a travelling direction; and,
wherein, in a state where, areas of the endless belt divided by a line connecting a rotation center of the stretching roller and a rotation center of the rubbing roller are defined as first and second areas, where the first area is located downstream, with respect the traveling direction of the endless belt, of a point at which the line crosses the endless belt, the pivot axis of the rubbing roller is located in the first area.
Ishihara et al. further teach the belt is an endless belt (¶ 63); the roller is a rubbing roller (¶ 94, 95); and, the belt contact region is located on a side of the stretching roller across a common external tangent line between the stretching member (55) and the stretching roller (53) adjacent to each other (fig 2).
Ishihara et al. further teach “[t]he refresh roller 90 finely grinds the surface of the heating belt 51 to restore the heating belt 51 to the state before the fixing operation,” ¶ 97.
Ishihara et al. fail to teach a pivoting moving unit to bring the claimed rubbing member into and out of contact (¶ 96), but rather move “an eccentric cam in a direction to bring the bearing member into pressure contact with the surface of the heating belt”, ¶ 96. The eccentric cam also separately “controls the pressing force (pressure)”, ¶ 96. Ishihara et al. specifically teach that instead of the above eccentric cam to bring the claimed rubbing member into contact and also adjust its pressing force against the belt, “the pressing mechanism 93 may have any structure that presses the refresh roller 90 against the surface of the heating belt 51 and changes (adjusts) the pressing force”, ¶ 96 (emphasis added). Ishihara et al. thus recognize that any moving mechanism that both brings the claimed rubbing member into contact and adjusts the pressing force is an equivalent moving unit. Examiner notes the repeated description of two separate functions – bringing the claimed rubbing member into pressure contact, and adjusting the pressing amount.
Chiyoda et al. teach a fixing unit (fig 2) with a surface profile improving member 51, analogous to the claimed rubbing member including a rubbing roller and the refresh roller of Ishihara et al. Chiyoda et al.’s detailed embodiment describes a fixing roller rather than a fixing belt, but Chiyoda et al. explicitly state that a fixing belt can be substituted, ¶ 168, when applying the invention of Chiyoda et al.
Chiyoda et al. further teach a moving unit including a motor configured to move the rubbing roller by pivoting around a pivot axis (fig 2); and,
wherein, in a state where, areas of the endless belt divided by a line connecting a rotation center of the stretching roller and a rotation center of the rubbing roller are defined as first and second areas, where the first area is located downstream, with respect the traveling direction of the endless belt, of a point at which the line crosses the endless belt, the pivot axis of the rubbing roller is located in the first area (fig 2, using the description in the Remarks dated 10/23/25, as modified by the Remarks dated 3/30/26, to guide construction of the newly added claim terms).
Chiyoda et al.’s moving unit teaches contact and separation of the claimed rubbing member, ¶ 72. Chiyoda et al. teach applying a fixed pressure upon contact through the use of a fixed urging member (¶ 72).
Kemmochi teaches a fixing unit (fig 2) with a surface profile improving member 3, analogous to the claimed rubbing member including a rubbing roller and the refresh roller of Ishihara et al. Kemmochi’s detailed embodiment describes a fixing roller rather than a fixing belt, but Kimmochi explicitly states that a fixing belt is preferable, ¶ 168, when applying the invention of Kimmochi.
Kemmochi further teaches a moving unit including a motor configured to move the rubbing roller by pivoting around a pivot axis (fig 2); and,
wherein, in a state where, within areas divided by a line intersecting a rotation center of the stretching roller, a rotation center of the rubbing roller, and the endless belt, where a first area is located on a downstream side with respect to the line in relation to the rotation direction of the endless belt and a second area is located on an upstream side with respect to the line, the pivot axis of the rubbing roller is located in the first area (fig 2, using the description in the Remarks dated 10/23/25 to guide construction of the previously added claim terms).’
Even though Kemochi’s moving mechanism does not have its pivot axis downstream of the newly added “point at which the line crosses the endless belt, Kemmochi’s moving unit nonetheless teaches both contact and separation of the claimed rubbing member, ¶ 65, as well as adjusting its pressing force, ¶ 89.
Kemochi adjusts the pressure force by gradually separating rather than an all-or-none separation of Chiyoda et al. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have recognized that by gradually separating the moving mechanism of Chiyoda et al., it would both contact and separate, as well as adjust its pressure force. The moving mechanism of Chiyoda et al., thus modified with the teaching of Kemochi, is thus an equivalent moving unit which can be substituted as explicitly taught by Ishihara et al.
Utilizing the moving unit as claimed and taught by Chiyoda et al., as modified by Kemmochi, in the device of Ishihara et al. would have been an obvious substitution of an equivalent known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 (II). Ishihara et al. explicitly teach that any structure that presses the claimed rubbing member against the surface of the heating belt and changes the pressing force is an equivalent of its eccentric cam, even though such an express teaching of equivalence is not required to render such a substitution obvious, MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Additionally and alternatively, Examiner assumes arguendo, without conceding, that Ishihara et al. fail to teach the rubbing member including a roller as movable between the first and second positions as described and claimed, simply because it fails to depict separation, and by disregarding the description of bringing it into contact with the belt, in line with Applicants’ now conceded conclusory arguments (infra).
Kemmochi further teaches separating a roughening roller during a fixing operation and bringing it into contact during a surface conditioning operation in the interest of “heat efficiency and prevention of damage or smear”, ¶ 142, as does Chiyoda et al., ¶ 142.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to separate a roughening roller during a fixing operation and bring it into contact during a surface conditioning operation. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so in the interest heat efficiency and prevention of damage or smear. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have seen the benefit of doing so in combination with the pressure adjustment of Ishihara et al., Examiner again noting that Ishihara et al. explicitly differentiate between bringing the claimed rubbing member into contact, and the pressing force with which it contacts; and, that Ishihara et al. refresh before the fixing operation.
Additionally and alternatively still, the reasoning of the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 6-8 in the Final Office Action dated 7/23/25 over Tatezawa et al. are repeated herein in their entirety without modification.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, the combination further teaches wherein: the rubbing roller is a roughening roller configured to roughen the outer peripheral surface of the endless belt by being in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the endless belt (all of Ishihara et al., ¶ 94, 95; Chiyoda et al., ¶ 62, and Kemmochi, ¶ 65, 114; individually and in combination),
the rubbing member further includes a support member (Chiyoda et al., fig 2 support member 52, and Kemmochi fig 2, support member 31; individually and in combination) configured to rotatably support the roughening roller (Chiyoda et al., ¶ 73, and Kemmochi ¶ 65; individually and in combination), and
the moving unit is configured to move the roughening roller between the first position and the second position by swinging the support member (Chiyoda et al., ¶ 72, and Kemmochi fig 2, ¶ 65, discussing contact and separation, and ¶ 89, discussing adjusting the pressing force; individually and in combination).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 3, the combination further teaches wherein the driving unit is configured to rotate the roughening roller so that, at the belt contact region where the roughening roller located at the second position is in contact with the endless belt, moves in a direction opposite to (Chiyoda et al., fig 2, and Kemmochi fig 4b, the rubbing member rotates counter clockwise; individually and in combination) the rotation direction of the endless belt (Chiyoda et al., fig 2, and Kemmochi fig 4b, the belt rotates clockwise, which are opposite to the corresponding directions; individually and in combination).
Ishihara et al. disclose rotating the claimed rubbing member either in the same direction as the belt or in the opposite direction, ¶ 93, as do Chiyoda et al., ¶ 73.
Regarding previously added claim 9, which depends from claim 3, the combination further teaches wherein the pivot axis is disposed at one end of the support member and the rotation center of the roughening roller is disposed at an opposite end of the support member (Chiyoda et al., fig 2, and Kemmochi fig 2; individually and in combination).
Regarding previously added claim 10, which depends from claim 9, Chiyoda et al. further teach wherein the pivot axis is located further downstream from the roughening roller in relation to the travel direction of the endless belt (fig 2).
Response to Arguments
Examiner accepts Applicants’ admission, Remarks dated 3/30/26 at page 8, that the combination teaches contact and separation.
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to (A)(3) filed 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue: if the pivot axis were disposed in the second area, it would be necessary to place the pivot shaft inside the belt.
Applicants provide no evidence for the assertion that if the pivot axis were disposed in the second area, it would be necessary to place the pivot shaft inside the belt. Applicants’ argument is as persuasive as the evidence presented in support of it. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion, both Chiyoda et al. and Kemmochi show that it would not be necessary to place the pivot shaft inside the belt, both of which apply their inventions to belts, while keeping the pivot axis outside the belt whether in the first or second area.
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 SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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 Lindsay 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights