DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (US Pub No 2023/0305448).
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa discloses a belt conveyor device comprising:
an endless belt (41);
a plurality of rollers on which the belt is stretched turnable (shown in figure 2); and
a correction mechanism (45) for correcting meanders of the belt relative to the rollers, wherein
the correction mechanism includes:
a pair of inclined bearings (521) including a pair of bearing portions for bearing a shaft portion of one of the rollers, and further including a pair of inclined portions that are inclined symmetrically with respect to an axial direction of the rollers, where the pair of inclined bearings rotatably support the shaft portion of any one of the plural rollers, and are movable in the axial direction (see fig 3); and
a pair of main-body guides (54) which are put into contact with the pair of inclined portions, respectively, and which make end portions of the rollers in the axial direction moved in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction, together with the pair of inclined bearings that are moved in the axial direction by meandering of the belt (shown in fig 3), wherein
the pair of inclined portions and the pair of main-body guides are placed below the rollers supported by the pair of inclined bearings, respectively, and
the pair of main-body guides are placed below the pair of inclined portions, respectively.
It is noted that Hayakawa fails to explicitly disclose the pair of main body guides are placed inside both end portions of the belt in the axial direction. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Hayakawa such that the positions of the main-body guides and inclined bearings are slightly further inward since a change in position (to this minor degree) would merely require a minimal amount of change without fundamentally changing anything about the structural or operational aspects of the prior art (e.g. obvious to try with limited predictable results, requiring merely routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 2, Hayakawa discloses the one of the rollers supported by the pair of inclined bearings rotates in a direction in which the belt is moved from upper toward lower side, and the pair of inclined portions and the pair of main-body guides are placed below the one of the rollers supported by the pair of inclined bearings.
Regarding claim 4, Hayakawa discloses a plurality of image forming parts (20); and the belt conveyor device according to claim 1 which is placed in adjacency to the image forming parts and the belt of which is an intermediate transfer belt to which toner images formed by the image forming parts are transferred successively in superimposition (shown in figures 1 and 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa.
Regarding claim 3, Hayakawa notes the capability of using the disclose belt conveyance device to convey a recording medium on which an image is recorded. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hayakawa with the ability to convey sheets required by claim 3 so as to convey a sheet on which an image has been formed with a belt having a meandering correction device (as noted in the last few paragraphs of Hayakawa).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Relating to the applicant’s argument about the amended subject matter about the position of the inclined portion and the main-body guides, as noted above, these features are not explicitly taught by Hayakawa but are believed to be obvious in view thereof. As noted, such a minor modification would be required to achieve the claimed invention. It’s also noted that the applicant points to paragraphs [0055] and [0056] for support of the criticality of the claimed feature. However, these paragraphs merely recite that there is able to be more vertical movement than axial movement of the correction roller without alluding to the advantage thereof. Paragraph [0054] already provides criticality for the compactness of the overall device, so it’s believed from the applicant’s disclosure this doesn’t add to that feature, as that one doesn’t require the inclined portion and main body guides to be within the bounds of the belt.
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 Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619