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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the elastic cleansing blade substrate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gondoh et al. (US 2014/0205338).
With respect to claim 1, Gondoh et al. disclose cleaning blade, comprising: an elastic cleaning blade substrate (e.g., item 62b) comprising an edge layer (as shown at least by fig. 4, edge layer of item 622) and a coating layer (e.g., surface layer 623) on a front end portion (e.g., the end covered by surface layer 623) of the elastic cleaning blade substrate (62b), the coating layer (623) that comes into contact with a cleaning target (e.g., item 3) to clean a surface of the cleaning target (as shown at least by fig. 4), and the front end portion comprising a front edge ridge part (e.g., item 62c); and a cleaning blade supporting member (e.g., item 621) to support the elastic cleaning blade substrate, wherein a maximum penetration depth hmax of an indenter of a microhardness tester is between 4.0 μm and 10.0 μm at a position 100 μm inward from the front edge ridge part (62c) on an undersurface of the elastic cleaning blade substrate (62b) as measured according to a nanoindentation hardness test (as discussed at least in paragraphs 15, 42-47, 98, 27-62 and/or 64-155).
With respect to claim 2, Gondoh et al. further disclose wherein the maximum penetration depth hmax is between 5.5 μm and 7.5 μm as measured in accordance with the nanoindentation hardness test (as discussed at least in paragraphs 15, 42-47, 98, 27-62 and/or 64-155).
With respect to claim 3, Gondoh et al. further disclose wherein the coating layer (623) on the undersurface has a thickness between 0.5 μm and 10 μm at the position 100 μm inward from the front edge ridge part (as discussed at least in paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 4, Gondoh et al. further disclose wherein the coating layer comprises particles and a resin binding the particles with the elastic cleansing blade substrate (as discussed at least in paragraphs 48-94).
With respect to claim 5, Gondoh et al. further disclose wherein the coating layer comprises an applied film comprising PTFE particles and a fluororesin or acrylic particles and polyvinyl alcohol resin or polyvinyl acetal resin (as discussed at least in paragraphs 48-94).
With respect to claim 6, Gondoh et al. further disclose wherein the elastic cleaning blade substrate (622) has a single layer structure of polyurethane rubber or a laminate structure of polyurethane rubber with different Martens hardness (as discussed at least in paragraphs 4, 7, 49-50, 64-69, and/or 147).
With respect to claim 7, Gondoh et al. further disclose wherein the elastic cleaning blade substrate (622) has the single layer structure and the polyurethane rubber has a Martens hardness between 0.5 N/mm.sup.2 and 2 N/mm.sup.2 (as discussed at least in paragraphs 4, 7, 49-50, 64-69, and/or 147).
With respect to claim 8, Gondoh et al. further disclose cleaning unit comprising: the cleaning blade of claim 1 (as shown at least by figs. 3-5).
With respect to claim 9, Gondoh et al. further disclose an intermediate transfer unit comprising: an intermediate transfer body (e.g., fig. 2, item 14); and the cleaning blade of claim 1 (as discussed above)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gondoh et al. (US 2014/0205338) in view of Ise et al. (US 2021/0302903).
With respect to claim 10, Gondoh et al. disclose an image forming apparatus (e.g., fig. 2) comprising: an image bearer (e.g., item 3); a charging device (e.g., item 4) to charge a surface of the image bearer (3); an irradiator (e.g., item L) to irradiate the surface of the image bearer (3) charged to form a latent electrostatic image; a developing device (e.g., item 5) to develop the latent electrostatic image with toner to form a visible image; a transfer device (e.g., item 7) comprising an intermediate transfer body (14) to transfer the visible image to a recording medium; a fixing device to fix the image transferred to the recording medium (as discussed at least in paragraph 38); and a cleaning device (e.g., item 6) comprising the cleaning blade of claim 1 (as discussed above).
With respect to claim 10, Gondoh et al. does not disclose a cleaning blade to clean the intermediate transfer body.
With further respect to claim 10, Ise et al. teaches using a cleaning blade to clean an intermediate transfer body or a photoconductive drum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the cleaning blade of Gondoh et al. to clean an intermediate transfer belt as taught by Ise et al. at least because there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in removing toner from the belt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8457. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, Walter L Lindsay Jr. 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.
/JOSEPH S WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
JSW