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 .
Claim Construction
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 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:
“moving mechanism” in claim 9;
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshioka et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0045357.
Regarding independent claim 1, a fixing device comprising:
a heater (11) extending in a first direction;
an endless belt (13) circularly movable around the heater (fig 2) in a rotating direction (r13), the endless belt having an outer peripheral surface (fig 2); and
a charge eliminating brush comprising (21):
a plurality of bristles which is formed in a bundle (fig 5, showing the bundled bristles); and
a holding frame holding the bundle (fig 5, showing the holding frame holding the bundle),
wherein the bundle has:
a proximal end held by the holding frame (fig 5); and
a distal end configured to contact the outer peripheral surface of the endless belt to remove static charge from the endless belt (fig 5), the distal end being directed downstream in the rotating direction, the distal end being positioned downstream relative to the proximal end in the rotating direction (¶ 48, describing how the brush “can deform in accordance with the fixing film”, which inherently leads to the distal end being directed downstream in the rotating direction and being positioned downstream relative to the proximal end in the rotating direction as a result of the friction between the brush bristles and the rotating surface it contacts, as evinced by Tabata et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0010567, ¶ 136; Oshima et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0302784, ¶¶ 80-81; and, Amemiya et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0316422, ¶¶ 36-41; describing how brush bristles deform while in contact with a relatively rotating body, MPEP 2131.01 (III)).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, further comprising:
a pressure-applying rotary body (17) configured to contact the endless belt, the pressure- applying rotary body being configured to convey a sheet in cooperation with the endless belt (fig 2),
wherein the outer peripheral surface has:
a contacting area (figs 2 and 5, the area of the outer peripheral surface at the nip between 13 and 17) configured to contact the sheet when the endless belt and the pressure-applying rotary body convey the sheet; and
a non-contacting area (figs 2 and 5, all other areas of the outer peripheral surface that are not the contacting area) not contacting the sheet when the endless belt and the pressure-applying rotary body convey the sheet, and
wherein the plurality of bristles is configured to contact the non-contacting area and does not contact the contacting area (fig 5, showing that the bristles are not wedged in the nip, but rather, contacting the non-contacting area of the outer peripheral surface opposite the nip).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, further comprising:
a pressure-applying rotary body (17) configured to contact the endless belt, the pressure- applying rotary body being configured to convey a sheet in cooperation with the endless belt (fig 2),
wherein the outer peripheral surface has:
a contacting area (figs 2 and 5, the area of the outer peripheral surface at the nip between 13 and 17) configured to contact the pressure-applying rotary body; and
a non-contacting area (figs 2 and 5, all other areas of the outer peripheral surface that are not the contacting area) not contacting the pressure-applying rotary body, and
wherein the plurality of bristles is configured to contact the non-contacting area and does not contact the contacting area (fig 5, showing that the bristles are not wedged in the nip, but rather, contacting the non-contacting area of the outer peripheral surface opposite the nip).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1,
wherein the endless belt comprises:
a base layer (13c); and
a surface layer (13a) covering the base layer, the surface layer being configured to contact a sheet, and
wherein the plurality of bristles is configured to contact the surface layer and does not contact the base layer (¶ 48, describing how the bristles “contact with the surface of the fixing film … without damaging the surface of the fixing film”, therefore without breaking the surface layer so as to contact the base layer).
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1,
wherein the endless belt has an end face in the first direction (fig 5, one of the end faces near the end flanges 14),
the fixing device further comprising:
a side guide (end flanges 14) configured to contact the endless belt to guide the endless belt, the side guide comprising:
an end face guide (fig 5, the flanges of the end flanges 14 that contact the end face of the endless belt) configured to contact the end face of the endless belt to restrict displacement of the endless belt in the first direction; and
a restriction rib (fig 5, the shaft of the end flange 14, which protrudes in the first direction as does a rib, and which restricts the flange through direct contact) protruding in the first direction from the end face guide, the restriction rib being configured to contact the plurality of bristles (the restriction rib contacts the bristles indirectly through the belt and the flange).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1,
wherein a dimension of the bundle in a direction orthogonal to both the first direction and a fibrous direction is greater than a dimension of the bundle in the first direction, the fibrous direction being a direction in which fibers in the bundle extend (whenever restricting “the bundle” to only a few bristles adjacent “in a direction orthogonal to both the first direction and a fibrous direction”, this limitation is inherently met because of the particular bounds of the bundle consisting of the chosen fibers).
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1,
wherein, at the proximal end, each of all of the plurality of bristles extends from the holding frame toward a downstream side relative to a straight line in the rotating direction, the straight line connecting the proximal end and a rotational center of the endless belt to each other (as further evinced by the cited prior art from claim 1, because the bristles will inherently be dragged along to follow the relatively rotating surface, noting that the “rotating direction” rotates along with the rotation, spanning all of two dimensional space along a cross section taken in the longitudinal direction of the fixing device, such that a line a “straight line connecting the proximal end and a rotational center of the endless belt” lies along the “rotational direction”, noting that as construed, this limitation only means that the distal ends of each of all of the plurality of bristles are downstream with respect to their proximal ends).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2024/0045357, in view of well known prior art.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, Yoshioka et al. further teach;
a heating unit (11 and 13 together) comprising the heater and the endless belt (fig 2);
a pressure-applying rotary body (17) configured to contact the endless belt, the pressure- applying rotary body being configured to, in cooperation with the endless belt, convey a sheet while nipping the sheet at a nipping region formed between the pressure-applying rotary body and the endless belt (fig 2); and
Examiner takes official notice that moving mechanisms that apply varying degrees of pressure so entirely separate a fixing belt from a pressure-applying rotary body, or to so pressure in varying degrees while maintaining contact are well known in the art of electrophotography. Such well known moving mechanisms entirely separate to avoid deforming a belt (see, e.g. Ando, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2009/0226200, ¶ 34); or, apply varying degrees of pressure so as to apply an appropriate pressure based on toner amount on a sheet, or characteristics of the sheet fixed upon, or both, to ensure proper fixation (see, e.g. Tsukioka, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2012/0070206, ¶ 5). See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide:
a moving mechanism configured to move the heating unit relative to the pressure- applying rotary body between a first position and a second position,
wherein, in a state where the heating unit is at the first position, the pressure-applying rotary body presses, at the nipping region, the sheet being conveyed against the heating unit with a first pressing force,
wherein, in a state where the heating unit is at the second position, the pressure-applying rotary body presses, at the nipping region, the sheet being conveyed against the heating unit with a second pressing force that is smaller than the first pressing force.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to entirely separate to avoid damaging a fixing belt; or, apply a varying pressure to appropriately fix toner to a particular sheet.
As combined, the following limitation inherently follows from such a combination:
wherein, both in a state where the heating unit is at the first position and in a state where the heating unit is at the second position, the distal end is directed downstream in the rotating direction and is positioned downstream relative to the proximal end in the rotating direction.
As further evinced by supporting references from claim 1 (infra), the bristles will maintain their deformed shapes, directed downstream in the rotational direction, unless and until the bristles themselves are no longer on contact with the rotating surface. With respect to varying degrees of pressure applied, the contact is still maintained, and thus the deformation continues unabatedly. However, even when there is complete separation between the fixing pair, the brush will still maintain contact. Either the fixing belt moves upwardly away from the nip, resulting in more pressure and more deformation, or the pressure roller moves downwardly from the nip, resulting in no change in pressure and no change in deformation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 12 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 either alone or in combination teaches the following limitations in combination with the other limitations:
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, wherein the endless belt further has an inner peripheral surface, the inner peripheral surface having an end portion in the first direction,
the fixing device further comprising:
an inner guide in contact with the end portion of the inner peripheral surface to guide circular movement of the endless belt,
wherein the endless belt has:
a contacting portion in contact with the inner guide; and
a non-contacting portion not contacting the inner guide, and
wherein the plurality of bristles is configured to contact the contacting portion and does not contact the non-contacting portion.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1,
wherein the endless belt has one end and an other end in the first direction,
wherein the charge eliminating brush is positioned closer to the one end of the endless belt than to the other end of the endless belt, and
wherein each of all of the plurality of bristles is inclined such that the distal end is closer to the one end of the endless belt than the proximal end is to the one end of the endless belt.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following reference are relevant for inclining distal ends closer to one end of a relatively rotating surface: Kanazawa et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0195026; and, Narita et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0371292. The remaining references teach discharging members in contact with fixing members.
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
Prosecution Insights