CTNF 19/194,700 CTNF 88562 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Interview Summary Examiner contacted Application on May 20, 2026, to indicate that the present Application is in a condition for allowance, except for the 112(b) rejection of claim 5. Examiner suggested amending “a plate-like member” to --a plate-like plate member--. Examiner asked to be informed whether or not such an amendment would be amenable by May 26, 2026. Examiner received no reply. Examiner tried again on May 26, 2026, and May 27, 2026, but still received no reply. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 5/8/2024 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “first separation member” in claims 1-11; “second separation member” in claims 1-11; “conveyance unit” in claims 1-11; “supporting portion” in claims 1-11; “engagement member” in claims 6-9; “engagement portion” in claims 6-9; and, “positioning portion” in claims 6-9. 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 § 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. 07-34-01 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the first separation member is a plate-like member”. 07-34-09 The phrase “plate-like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “plate-like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally and alternatively , it is unclear which property or properties of a plate the first separation member possesses. As such, there is no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claim. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-4, and 6-11 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art either alone or in combination teaches the following limitations in combination with the other limitations: Regarding independent claim 1 , wherein the second frame is configured to pivot between a first position and a second position, wherein the first position is a position at which the first separation member is positioned at a first separation position at which the first separation member separates the recording material from the first rotary member, the second separation member is positioned at a second separation position at which the second separation member separates the recording material from the second rotary member, and the conveyance unit is positioned at a conveyance position at which the conveyance unit conveys the recording material having passed through the nip portion, wherein the second position is a position at which the first separation member is positioned at a first retracted position at which the first separation member is more retracted from the first rotary member than the first separation member at the first separation position is, the second separation member is positioned at a second retracted position at which the second separation member is more retracted from the second rotary member than the second separation member at the second separation position is, and the conveyance unit is positioned at a conveyance retracted position at which the conveyance unit is more retracted from the nip portion than the conveyance unit at the conveyance position is, and wherein a distance between the first separation member and the second separation member in a case where the second frame is positioned at the second position is shorter than a distance between the first separation member and the second separation member in a case where the second frame is positioned at the first position; and, Regarding independent claim 11 , wherein the second frame is configured to pivot between a first position and a second position, wherein the first position is a position at which the first separation member is positioned at a first separation position at which the first separation member separates the recording material from the first rotary member, the second separation member is positioned at a second separation position at which the second separation member separates the recording material from the second rotary member, and the conveyance unit is positioned at a conveyance position at which the conveyance unit conveys the recording material having passed through the nip portion, wherein the second position is a position at which the first separation member is positioned at a first retracted position at which the first separation member is more retracted from the first rotary member than the first separation member at the first separation position is, the second separation member is positioned at a second retracted position at which the second separation member is more retracted from the second rotary member than the second separation member at the second separation position is, and the conveyance unit is positioned at a conveyance retracted position at which the conveyance unit is more retracted from the nip portion than the conveyance unit at the conveyance position is, wherein the second separation member is configured not to come into contact with the first separation member in a case where the second frame is positioned at the first position, and wherein the second separation member is configured to come into contact with the first separation member in a case where the second frame is positioned at the second position. 07-43-03 AIA 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach two separation members on the same support: Kojima et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0019107; Hayase et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0277086; and, Arakawa, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2012/0251203. Hayase et al. further teach adjusting the gaps of one set of separation members based on sheet size to accommodate thermal expansion of the roller. Moteki, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0117920, teaches separately pivoting separation members on separate rollers of a fixer. Kitagawa, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0322667, teaches pivoting a second separation member along with pivoting of the conveyance unit. Yoshikuni, JP 2015-028582, teaches separating a separation member from a roller to reduce wear to its tip, interlocking such motion with a fixing roller separation mechanism . 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 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 4 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 7 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 8 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/194,700 Page 9 Art Unit: 2852
Prosecution Insights