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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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: “a heat conductor contacting an inner circumferential surface of the fixing rotator to uniform temperature distribution” and “a pressure-receiving portion contacting the heat conductor to receive pressure from the pressure rotator via the fixing rotator” in claim 1.
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 § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi US 20230229104 in view of Mitsuoka US 20200301331.
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses:
A fixing device comprising:
a fixing rotator (42) (FIG. 6);
a heat conductor (45a) (FIG. 6) contacting an inner circumferential surface of the fixing rotator to uniform temperature distribution in a rotation axis direction of the fixing rotator [0027];
a pressure rotator (41) (FIG. 6) to press the fixing rotator against the heat conductor to form a nip and press a recording medium passing through the nip;
a heater (43) (FIG. 6) disposed inside a loop of the fixing rotator;
a pressure-receiving portion (48) (FIG. 6) contacting the heat conductor to receive pressure from the pressure rotator via the fixing rotator; and
a heat insulator (45b or 52) (FIG. 6) including a sheet-shape between the pressure-receiving portion and the heat conductor.
Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the heat insulator including a sheet-shaped silica aerogel.
Mitsuoka discloses a fixing device comprising a heat insulator (71) (FIG. 2) including a sheet-shaped silica aerogel [0058].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Yamaguchi to include the sheet-shaped silica aerogel as disclosed by Mitsuoka in order to provide an efficient, low density thermal insulator.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses:
a reflector including:
a reflecting portion (portion of 48 opposing heaters 43) (FIG. 6) to reflect radiant heat radiated by the heater toward an inner circumferential surface of the fixing rotator; and
the pressure-receiving portion connected to the reflecting portion to transfer heat from the reflecting portion to the pressure-receiving portion (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi in view of Mitsuoka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach a thermal conductivity of the heat insulator in a range from 0.012 to 0.027 W/m*K.
Mitsuoka discloses a thermal conductivity range of the heat insulator of from 0.01 to 0.035 W/m*K.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus as taught by Yamaguchi in view of Mitsuoka to include a thermal conductivity of the heat insulator in a range from 0.012 to 0.027 W/m*K in order to achieve a desired (low) thermal transfer between certain components.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi in view of Mitsuoka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach a thickness of the heat insulator in a range from 0.1 to 1.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus as taught by Yamaguchi in view of Mitsuoka to include a thickness of the heat insulator in a range from 0.1 to 1.0 mm in order to achieve a low-profile thermal insulator (the silica aerogel as disclosed by Mitsuoka ensures high thermal insulation even at low thickness).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi in view of Mitsuoka teaches:
An image forming apparatus comprising the fixing device according to claim 1 (FIG. 1) (Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi in view of Mitsuoka teaches:
wherein the sheet-shaped silica aerogel includes a sheet synthesized from silica aerogel and fibers [0058] (Mitsuoka).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuyama US 10496021 in view of Mitsuoka US 20200301331.
Regarding claim 1, Furuyama discloses:
A fixing device comprising:
a fixing rotator (50) (FIG. 3);
a heat conductor (60) (FIG. 3) contacting an inner circumferential surface of the fixing rotator to uniform temperature distribution in a rotation axis direction of the fixing rotator;
a pressure rotator (53) (FIG. 3) to press the fixing rotator against the heat conductor to form a nip and press a recording medium passing through the nip;
a heater (54) (FIG. 3) disposed inside a loop of the fixing rotator;
a pressure-receiving portion (45a) (FIG. 3) contacting the heat conductor to receive pressure from the pressure rotator via the fixing rotator; and
a heat insulator (61) (FIG. 3) including a sheet-shape between the pressure-receiving portion and the heat conductor.
Furuyama does not explicitly disclose the heat insulator including a sheet-shaped silica aerogel.
Mitsuoka discloses a fixing device comprising a heat insulator (71) (FIG. 2) including a sheet-shaped silica aerogel [0058].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Furuyama to include the sheet-shaped silica aerogel as disclosed by Mitsuoka in order to provide an efficient, low density thermal insulator.
Regarding claim 2, Furuyama discloses:
a reflector including:
a reflecting portion (45b) (FIG. 3) to reflect radiant heat radiated by the heater toward an inner circumferential surface of the fixing rotator; and
the pressure-receiving portion connected to the reflecting portion to transfer heat from the reflecting portion to the pressure-receiving portion (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Furuyama in view of Mitsuoka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach a thermal conductivity of the heat insulator in a range from 0.012 to 0.027 W/m*K.
Mitsuoka discloses a thermal conductivity range of the heat insulator of from 0.01 to 0.035 W/m*K.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus as taught by Furuyama in view of Mitsuoka to include a thermal conductivity of the heat insulator in a range from 0.012 to 0.027 W/m*K in order to achieve a desired (low) thermal transfer between certain components.
Regarding claim 4, Furuyama in view of Mitsuoka teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach a thickness of the heat insulator in a range from 0.1 to 1.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the apparatus as taught by Furuyama in view of Mitsuoka to include a thickness of the heat insulator in a range from 0.1 to 1.0 mm in order to achieve a low-profile thermal insulator (the silica aerogel as disclosed by Mitsuoka ensures high thermal insulation even at low thickness).
Regarding claim 5, Furuyama in view of Mitsuoka teaches:
An image forming apparatus comprising the fixing device according to claim 1 (FIG. 1) (Furuyama).
Regarding claim 6, Furuyama in view of Mitsuoka teaches:
wherein the sheet-shaped silica aerogel includes a sheet synthesized from silica aerogel and fibers [0058] (Mitsuoka).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S GIAMPAOLO II whose telephone number is (571)272-6619. The examiner can normally be reached T-Th 9-5.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/THOMAS S GIAMPAOLO II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852