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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7 May 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the Drawing objection. The Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 still stand.
This reference (WO-2017090692-A1) was published within the one-year grace period of the effective filing date of the Instant Application and includes two inventors that are also inventors in the Instant Application. However, it is not apparent that this prior-art reference is attributable to these common inventors because the prior-art reference includes two additional inventors who are not inventors for the Instant Application. Therefore, this prior-art reference is not excepted based on the presumption that this reference should be treated as a valid prior-art reference (referencing MPEP 2153.01.a).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are allowed.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 7 May 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 3-4 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 3-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umemura et al. (WO-2017090692-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Regarding claim 3, Umemura teaches a heater (“heater,” page 53; fig. 12) for heating an object to be heated (“object,” page 3) in such a manner that the object to be heated is swept with the heater disposed opposite the object to be heated (sweep direction is D1, fig. 12; page 53; face of the object is “perpendicular” to the sweep direction, page 36),
the heater comprising:
a base (base 11, fig. 12; “base body and a plurality of resistance heating wires on the base body,” page 3) having a rectangular shape (base 11 has a rectangular shape, fig. 12); and
a plurality of heating cells (each wire is construed as being a cell, fig. 12) each independently receiving power supply (“each receiving power separately,” page 53),
the heating cells being disposed on the base and arranged in a longitudinal direction of the base (horizontal direction, fig. 12),
wherein each of the heating cells includes a plurality of lateral wires (annotated in fig. 12 below) extending in substantially parallel with the longitudinal direction of the base, and a plurality of straight oblique wires (annotated in fig. 12 below) tilted relative to the lateral wires, one end of one straight oblique wire of the plurality of straight oblique wires being connected to a power supply wire (annotated in fig. 12 below; each of the wires receives its own power, page 53), a length of each lateral wire of the plurality of lateral wires being longer than a length of each straight oblique wire of the plurality of straight oblique wires (“All horizontal wiring sections (X) are formed to be longer than the vertical wiring sections,” page 53),
the lateral wires and the straight oblique wires are connected to form a serpentine shape as a whole (the wires in fig. 12 for a “zigzag” or “serpentine” pattern, page 14),
an insulation gap is interposed between adjoining two of the heating cells so as to meander between the two heating cells (two insulation gaps are annotated in fig. 12 below),
the insulation gap is tilted to one side (the construed insulation gaps tilt to the right, fig. 12) in the longitudinal direction as a whole, and the insulation gap is formed without gaps (the construed insulation gaps are continuous with no gaps) extending in parallel with the plurality of lateral wires (the two construed insulation gaps extend horizontally in fig. 12 in parallel with the construed lateral wires).
Umemura, fig. 12 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
917
1201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Umemura teaches wherein the insulation gap includes: a plurality of first gaps (oblique gaps, annotated in fig. 12 below) located between the straight oblique wires of a first heating cell and a second heating cell adjoining each other in the longitudinal direction (the annotated first cell and second cells adjoin each other in the horizontal direction, annotated fig. 8),
the first gaps being equal in tilt angle to the straight oblique wires (the first gaps have the same tilt angle, annotated fig. 8); and
a plurality of second gaps tilted oppositely to the first gaps (the second gaps are horizontal and tilt oppositely in the horizontal direction compared to the first gaps, which are tilted towards the vertical),
the second gaps being shorter in path length than the first gaps (the construed second gaps are shorter than the construed first gaps, annotated fig. 8), and
the insulation gap includes either a continuous part of the first gap, second gap, and first gap arranged continuously in this order (the right construed gap is in the order of first gap, second gap, and first gap), or a continuous part of the second gap, first gap, and second gap arranged continuously in this order (the left construed gap is in the order of second gap, first gap, and second gap).
Umemura, fig. 8 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
515
1270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Umemura teaches wherein an angle formed by a first gap with respect to a sweep direction (oblique gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 45 degrees relative to D1 for the oblique gaps) is different from an angle formed by a second gap with respect to the sweep direction (horizontal gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 90 degrees relative to D1 for the horizontal gaps).
Regarding claim 9, Umemura teaches wherein an angle formed by a first gap with respect to a sweep direction (oblique gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 45 degrees relative to D1 for the oblique gaps) is different from an angle formed by a second gap with respect to the sweep direction (horizontal gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 90 degrees relative to D1 for the horizontal gaps).
Regarding claim 10, Umemura teaches wherein
the insulation gap includes a first gap (oblique gaps annotated in fig. 8 above) and a second gap (horizontal gaps annotated in fig. 8 above) that are different in path length from each other (the construed second gaps are shorter than the construed first gaps, annotated fig. 8), and that are alternately arranged between a first heating cell and a second heating cell adjoining each other in the longitudinal direction (the annotated first cell and second cells adjoin each other in the horizontal direction, annotated fig. 8),
the first gap is located between the straight oblique wires in the first heating cell and the second heating cell, and is equal in tilt angle to the straight oblique wires (the annotated oblique gaps annotated in fig. 8 above have the same angle as the construed oblique wires, i.e., the oblique wires and first gaps are parallel, annotated in the figs. 8 above),
the second gap is tilted oppositely to the first gap (the second gaps are horizontal and tilt oppositely in the horizontal direction compared to the first gaps, which are tilted towards the vertical), and is shorter in path length than the first gap (the construed second gaps are shorter than the construed first gaps, annotated fig. 8), and
the insulation gap includes either a continuous part of the first gap, second gap, and first gap arranged continuously in this order (the right construed gap is in the order of first gap, second gap, and first gap), or a continuous part of the second gap, first gap, and second gap arranged continuously in this order (the left construed gap is in the order of second gap, first gap, and second gap).
Regarding claim 11, Umemura teaches wherein an angle formed by the first gap with respect to a sweep direction of at least one of the object to be heated and the heater (oblique gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 45 degrees relative to D1 for the oblique gaps; D1 is the sweep direction with respect to the object) is different from an angle formed by the second gap with respect to the sweep direction (horizontal gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 90 degrees relative to D1 for the horizontal gaps).
Regarding claim 12, Umemura teaches wherein an angle formed by a first gap with respect to a sweep direction of at least one of the object to be heated and the heater (oblique gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 45 degrees relative to D1 for the oblique gaps; D1 is the sweep direction with respect to the object) is different from an angle formed by a second gap with respect to the sweep direction (horizontal gaps, annotated in fig. 8 above; the construed angle is appx 90 degrees relative to D1 for the horizontal gaps).
Regarding claim 13, Umemura teaches a fixing device (fixing device 5, fig. 16) comprising the heater (heater 1, fig. 16) according to claim 3 (please see the rejection for claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 14, Umemura teaches an image-forming device (“Figure 17 also shows the main parts of a fixing device 5 installed in an electrophotographic image forming apparatus.,” page 66) comprising the heater (heater 1, fig. 17) according to claim 3 (please see the rejection for claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 15, Umemura teaches a heating device comprising the heater (“heating device equipped with this heater,” page 69) according to claim 3 (please see the rejection for claim 3 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show:
“…wherein each of the heating cells includes a plurality of lateral wires extending in substantially parallel with the longitudinal direction of the base, and a plurality of straight oblique wires tilted relative to the lateral wires, a length of each lateral wire of the plurality of lateral wires being longer than a length of each straight oblique wire of the plurality of straight oblique wires…
each of the heating cells further includes a first folded part where a corresponding one of the lateral wires and a corresponding one of the straight oblique wires are folded at an obtuse angle, and
in the first folded part, an end of the lateral wire is connected to a first end of a straight inversely oblique wire forming an acute angle or a right angle with respect to the straight oblique wire, a second end of the straight inversely oblique wire is connected to a first end of the straight oblique wire, and a second end of the straight oblique wire is connected to a power supply wire,” as recited in claim 1.
The closest prior art of record (Schaumann / US-20170156178-A1) teaches the “inversely oblique wire” (please see the Office action filed 11 Feb 2026). However, the examiner was persuaded by and agrees with the Applicant’s arguments filed 7 May 2026 that this reference does not disclose “a length of each lateral wire of the plurality of lateral wires being longer than a length of each straight oblique wire of the plurality of straight oblique wires.”
Another reference was also considered (Brittingham / US-20070115163-A1). This reference teaches a pattern in fig. 3 that is used as a heater element for military stealth aircraft. When turned on its side, fig. 3 from this reference appears to teach the “lateral wire,” the “oblique wire,” and the “inversely oblique wire.” However, this figure does not teach “heating cells,” such that each of the cells has a “plurality of lateral wires,” a “plurality of straight oblique wires,” and a “first folded part,” which includes a “straight oblique wire.” Instead, all of the cells (the wires 16a in fig. 3) are mingled together such that there cannot be structural “heating cells” with the required wires according to claim 1.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Umemura.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights