DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: pull-in member (disclosed in detail in paragraphs [0050] and [0106]) and push-out member (disclosed in paragraph [0069]) in claim 1, restriction member (disclosed in paragraph [0057]) of claim 6, moving member (disclosed in paragraph [0047]) of claim 7, damper member (disclosed in paragraph [0058]) of claim 10, elastic member (disclosed in paragraph [0050]) of claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-12, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miki (US Pat No 8,408,535).
Regarding claim 1, Miki discloses an image forming apparatus comprising:
a main body (500);
a unit (9c) configured to be inserted into the main body in a first direction and pulled out from the main body in a second direction opposite to the first direction;
a to-be-engaged member (59);
a pull-in member (70) configured to engage with the to-be-engaged member and pull in the to-be-engaged member; and
a push-out member (132) configured to push out the unit in the second direction,
wherein one of the to-be-engaged member and the pull-in member is disposed on the main body,
wherein the other of the to-be-engaged member and the pull-in member is disposed on the unit,
wherein the pull-in member is configured to, in a case where the unit is inserted into the main body in the first direction, engage with the to-be-engaged member and pull in the to-be-engaged member so that the unit is displaced in the first direction (shown in figures 14 and 16), and
wherein in a case where the unit undergoes an external force in the first direction with the pull-in member engaged with the to-be-engaged member, the other of the to-be-engaged member and the pull-in member is displaced in the first direction with respect to the main body by the external force so that the pull-in member and the to-be-engaged member are disengaged, and the unit is pushed out in the second direction by the push-out member (shown in figures 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 2, Miki discloses the pull-in member is configured to move between a standby position where the pull-in member engages with the to-be-engaged member and a release position where the pull-in member disengages from the to-be-engaged member (e.g. in or out of slot 710C).
Regarding claim 3, Miki discloses a guide member (710) configured to guide movement of the to-be-engaged member, wherein the guide member forms movement paths of the to-be-engaged member, the movement paths including a first path (710C), a second path (710D), and a third path connecting the first and second paths, wherein the first path includes a movement path of the to-be-engaged member through which the pull-in member engaged with the to-be-engaged member moves from the standby position to the release position, and wherein the second path includes a path through which the to-be-engaged member moves in a case where the unit is pushed out in the second direction by the push-out member.
Regarding claim 4, Miki discloses the third path is located between the first path and the second path in a direction orthogonal to both the first direction and a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 10, Miki discloses a damper member (52), wherein the damper member is configured to, as the pull-in member pulls in the to-be-engaged member, reduce moving speed of the unit in the first direction.
Regarding claim 11, Miki discloses the push-out member is an elastic member.
Regarding claim 12, Miki discloses the unit is an accommodation unit configured to accommodate a recording material.
Regarding claim 14, Miki discloses an elastic member (either of 703 or 704), wherein the elastic member is configured to bias the pull-in member in a direction where the pull-in member pulls in the to-be-engaged member.
Regarding claim 15, Miki discloses in a case where the pull-in member is at the release position and engaged with the to-be-engaged member and the unit is moved in the second direction, the pull-in member moves to the standby position, and wherein in a case where the unit is further moved in the second direction, the pull-in member and the to-be-engaged member are disengaged (disclosed in relation to figures 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 16, Miki discloses the to-be-engaged member is disposed on the unit and the pull-in member is disposed on the main body.
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) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted the device of Miki is disclosed to be ordered opposite to the claim. However, a simple rearrangement of parts would be required to accommodate the applicant’s claim that the to-be-engaged part be on the main body and the pull in member to be disposed on the cassette. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Miki since a simple rearrangement is routine in the skill (see 2144.04).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki in view of Yoshida (US Pat No 9,291,991).
Regarding claim 13, it is noted the Miki fails to disclose the unit is a fixing device. However, Yoshida disclose a similar image forming apparatus wherein a sheet holder (12) and fixing device (22) are similar inserted into the image forming apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the unit to be a fixing unit configured to fix a toner image formed on a recording material or a toner accommodation unit configured to accommodate toner to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the full insertion of the fixing unit into the image forming apparatus, as noted by Miki.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art on record disclose or suggest each and every element of the applicant’s claimed invention (including the use of the 112(f) interpretation above).
Note: if the applicant were to amend the claims to not require 112(f) interpretation, the allowability of the above noted claims could be withdrawn, which would not necessitate a non-final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art generally teaches features believed to be relevant to the applicant’s claimed invention. Specifically relating to the features of the pull-in device and various similar devices having multiple paths.
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
Prosecution Insights