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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/4/26 has been entered.
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 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinaga et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0217056, in view of Suzuki, JP 2003-308948, and Orchard et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,538,453.
The reasoning of the rejections of claims 1-3 and 9-11 over Yoshinaga et al. in the Office Action dated 11/5/25 are repeated herein in their entirety with the following additions:
among the myriad of abnormalities Yoshinaga et al. take into account, Yoshinaga et al. fail to take into account the newly added limitations, emphasized through underlining:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, wherein the one or more controllers further determine that an abnormality other than the belt slip state occurs when:
an amount of change in the fixing belt temperature information per unit time is determined to be equal to, or greater than, a first change amount threshold value, and
an amount of change in the pressure member temperature information per unit time is determined to be less than a second change amount threshold value, and
the abnormality other than the belt slip state is a heating member abnormality when the heating member becomes higher in temperature than in a normal state, or a sensor abnormality which is an abnormality in the fixing belt temperature detector.
Initially, Examiner notes that the claim merely requires one of the two newly added options. As such, prior art that reads on only one will suffice for rejection.
Suzuki teach the known technique of determining an abnormality including a heating member higher in temperature than in a normal state and a sensor abnormality when a reported variable exceeds the bounds of a preset range for that variable (e.g.: “In addition, the CPU 1 determines whether the maximum output state continues for an arbitrary time within a predetermined time period longer than the output state to be given to the normal state or the output state given to the normal state or more even if the control result value does not become an abnormal value. When the minimum output state continues for an arbitrary time within the time period, it has a determination function unit that determines that the heating body or the detection means is abnormal”).
An amount of change of a given variable per unit time is variable like any other. Based on Suzuki’s broader teaching of limiting a variable to a range, rather than the particular variable Suzuki chose, MPEP 2123, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have recognized that exceeding the bounds of a range of an amount of change of a given variable per unit time would also inform a determination “that the heating body or the detection means is abnormal”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide the added limitations. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to determine that the heating body or the detection means is abnormal.
Additionally, even if Suzuki cannot be read as broadly as suggesting limiting any variable to a range, including an amount of change of a given variable per unit time, the prior art recognizes doing so anyway. Orchard recognize that “[b]ecause of the close proximity of the [temperature] sensor to the heated fuser roller, the sensor is heated to a high temperature. It has, however, been discovered that some sensors fail in an erratic and intermittent manner” (col 2 ll 15-21). Orchard specifically teach monitoring for an amount of change of a given variable per unit time to determine whether errors occurred. “[A]t preselected time intervals (such as every one second), the logic and control unit causes a comparison of the current temperature reading to be made to the previous temperature reading. If the temperature sensing system indicates that the temperature has changed by more than a predetermined amount (such as 10?F [sic]), an error is recorded in an error log of the logic and control unit” (col 4 ll 8-15).Thus, even if Suzuki fails to specifically teach monitoring for an amount of change per unit time of a given variable, Orchard specifically does so.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide the added limitations. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to determine that the detection means is abnormal as indicative of an erratic or intermittent sensor response.
Additionally and alternatively, moreover, based on the specific teachings of Orchard, combined with the teaching of Suzuki, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would even have reason to try and distinguish whether the erratic and intermittent response is due to a heating abnormality rather than a sensor abnormality. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide all of the added limitations, rather than only one. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to determine that the heating body or the detection means is abnormal as indicative of an erratic or intermittent sensor response from either a broken sensor or an abnormal heater.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to specify the “the abnormality other than the belt slip state” has overcome the rejections under 112(a) written description and enablement.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. As indicated above, the newly cited prior art renders the newly added limitations obvious as merely using the amount of change per unit time of a variable within a preset range to determine whether there are faulty components.
Conclusion
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