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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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 1-2,4-5,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. (U.S. 2024/0345499).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Shibata et al. teach an image forming apparatus 1 (Fig.1) including a photoconductor 103Y, an exposure head 500Y having a substrate 502 on which a plurality of light emitting elements 503 mounted on the substrate in a longitudinal direction that corresponds to the axial direction of the photoconductor, and a lens array 506 that condenses the light from the light emitting elements 503 (Fig.10A-D,par. 42, 63); a longitudinal-shaped cleaning rod 801 that is inserted from outside the image forming apparatus and cleans the surfaces of the lens array and a guide member 808,809 which guides the cleaning rod when inserted into the image forming apparatus (Fig.s 12-14,par.77-78,88-89); the cleaning rod including a cleaning member 803 which abuts against the lens array to clean off attached matter (Fig. 11C, 14B,par.81); the cleaning member includes a first portion 803a and a second portion 803b (Fig.15, par. 112) which are provided at different positions and as seen in Fig.15 which is viewing the cleaning rod at a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cleaning rod, the cross-section of the first portion is different than the cross section of the second portion.
Regarding claim 2, the second protrusion 803b has a second cross-sectional area smaller than the first protrusion’s 803a first cross-sectional area.
Regarding claim 4, the second protrusion 803b has a width smaller than the first protrusion’s 803a width in a vertical direction when viewing Fig.15 which is considered applicant’s “lateral” direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the exposure head (longitudinal direction of the substrate).
Regarding claim 5, since the second protrusion is smaller than the first protrusion, the second protrusion will have a smaller moment of inertia since it has a smaller mass; the materials of the protrusions being the same.
Regarding claim 11, the light emitting elements can be electroluminescent (EL) as discussed in par. 69.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,6-10 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.
Regarding claim 3, the second cross-sectional shape having a width smaller than the width of the first cross-sectional shape in the optical axis direction of the lenses is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6, the cleaning rod having a plurality of second portions is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 7, the guide member having a length in the longitudinal direction and the first portion of the cleaning rod being longer than the guide member is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8-9, the cleaning rod having a wall portion that is engaged with the exposure head over the longitudinal direction is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, the cleaning rod has a cross-sectional shape including a facing portion that faces the emission surface of the lenses and supports the cleaning rod, a wall portion that extends on both sides of the facing portion in a lateral direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and is engaged with the exposure head, the first portion has a cross-sectional shape that includes the facing portion and wall portion and the second portion has a cross-sectional shape including the facing portion is not taught, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada et al., Hosoi et al. ‘131, Okada et al., Momoka, Kobayashi ‘654, Kobayashi ‘017, Hosoi et al. ‘751, Aruga et al., and Morimoto et al. all teach cleaning rods to clean the surface of an exposure device that are relevent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B BEATTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-2130. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7 to 3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephanie Bloss, can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-2130.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ROBERT B BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights