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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9 March 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein and lined through has not been considered.
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 § 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.
Claims 8 and 10 are 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.
It is unclear from the wording of the claim language if the claim is intending that the/an opening is two different openings, one in each of the two surfaces; or that the two surfaces share or form one combined opening. As such, the Office is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim language.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: it is unclear from the claim language whether the first surface and the second surfaces are surfaces of a common member such as front and back surfaces of a plate or two distinctly separate items. As such, the Office is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim language.
Claim 9 is 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.
It is unclear how the “an opening portion” of claim 1 and be two apparently different openings in claim 9. It is also unclear from the wording of the claim language if the claim is intending that the/an opening is two different openings, one related to each pair of surfaces; or that the four surfaces somehow form one combined opening. As such, the Office is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim language.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: it is unclear from the claim language how all of the surfaces relate to each other and the opening or the opening(s). As such, the Office is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim language.
Claim 10 is 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.
At least partially due to the lack of clarity regarding claim 8, since there is one “the opening portion” it is unclear what structure exactly is being claimed by “the pressing roller is partially projected from the opening portion” and “the rotatable member is partially projected from the opening portion”
Claim 11 is 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. The claim phrasing in convoluted and it is unclear and reads as if it is saying the opening portion and the pressing roller are formed by the frame and it seems as though two portions are “separated by a predetermined distance”, but the language uses the word “is” and thus the language of the claim is unclear.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device for fixing a toner image formed on a recording material on the recording material (fig.1&2, #18), the fixing device comprising: a heating unit including a rotatable member which is cylindrical and flexible (fig.2&4, #22) and a heating member in contact with an inner peripheral surface of the rotatable member (fig.2, #24/#70/#71, #71 directly contacts; para.0062); a pressing roller (fig.2, #23) including a core metal (fig.2, #50; para.0037) and a rubber layer covering the core metal (fig.2, #51) and configured to contact an outer peripheral surface of the rotatable member (fig.2, at #52), the pressing roller forming a nip portion with the rotatable member by sandwiching the rotatable member with the heating member (fig.2, #52); and a metallic frame (fig.2&3, #31 & #32; para.0028) configured to hold the pressing roller (para.0033&0038), the frame including an inlet portion provided with an opening through which the recording material is conveyed to the nip portion (fig.2&3, where #48 is located) and an outlet portion provided with an opening through which the recording material is conveyed from the nip portion to an outside (fig.2, where #49 is located; para.0034), wherein in a region other than the inlet portion and the outlet portion, the frame is provided with an opening portion of which a length in a rotational axis direction of the pressing roller is longer than a length of the rubber layer in the rotational axis direction (fig.3, #41 is part of #32 and upper opening of #32 between #41 is longer/wider than #22).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein the frame includes a surface opposing the pressing roller (fig.2, see bottom frame facing #23 and curving up the side), and wherein the opening portion is provided in the surface (fig.3, opening above #42 between the #41s).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein the frame includes a first surface opposing the pressing roller (fig.2, bottom plate portion curved upward and facing #23) and a second surface opposing the pressing roller and different from the first surface (fig.2, other end of bottom plate portion (cur off, not shown, under #48) also facing #23), and wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the opening portion is formed by the first surface and the second surface being separated from each other (see fig.2, opening upward for #23 to contact #22).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the pressing roller is partially projected from the opening portion to the outside (fig.2, #23 projects above the end of the portion of bottom plate curved upwards).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein the frame includes a surface opposing the rotatable member, and wherein the opening portion is provided in the surface (fig.2, #34 facing #22).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein the frame includes a first surface opposing the rotatable member (fig.2, ‘left’ end of #34 projecting downward and facing #22) and a second surface opposing the rotatable member and different from the first surface (fig.2, ‘right’ end of #34 projecting downward and facing #22), and wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the opening portion is formed by the first surface and the second surface being separated from each other (see fig.2, opening downward).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the rotatable member is partially projected from the opening portion to the outside (fig.2, #22 projected downward beyond the ends of #34 projecting downward).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein the frame includes a first surface opposing the pressing roller (fig.2, bottom surface of #32 facing #23) and a second surface opposing the rotatable member (fig.2, top plate #34 facing #22); and wherein the opening portion is provided in the first surface and the second surface (fig.2, #32 open to #34).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein the frame includes a first surface opposing the pressing roller (fig.2, bottom plate portion curved upward and facing #23), a second surface opposing the pressing roller and different from the first surface (fig.2, other end of bottom plate portion (cur off, not shown, under #48) also facing #23), a third surface opposing the rotatable member (fig.2, ‘left’ end of #34 projecting downward and facing #22), and a fourth surface opposing the rotatable member and different from the third surface (fig.2, ‘right’ end of #34 projecting downward and facing #22), wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the opening portion is formed by the first surface and the second surface being separated from each other (see fig.2, opening upward for #23 to contact #22), and wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the opening portion is formed by the third surface and the fourth surface being separated from each other (see fig.2, opening downward for #22 to contact #23).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the pressing roller is partially projected from the opening portion opposing the pressing roller to the outside, and wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction, the rotatable member is partially projected from the opening portion opposing the rotatable member to the outside (see fig.2, where each ‘outside’ is facing the opposing frame part).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein as viewed in the rotational axis direction (fig.2), an edge portion of the frame which forms the opening portion and the pressing roller is separated by a predetermined distance or more (fig.2, left edge of bottom plate #32 separated from #23 a predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device further comprising a cover member configured to cover a partial area or a whole area of the opening portion of the frame (fig.2&3, #48).
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach a fixing device wherein a surface (fig.2, top side of #48), on an opposite side of a surface opposing the opening portion (fig.2, bottom side of #48), of the cover member functions as a conveyance guide of the recording material (para.0034).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: an image forming means (fig.1, #8) configured to form a toner image on a recording material (para.0020&0025); and a fixing device (fig.1, #18) according to Claim 1 (see rejection above), the fixing device fixing the toner image formed by the image forming means on the recording material (para.0025).
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) in view of Mitsuoka et al. (US Pub.2007/0036594) and in view of Fujiwara et al. (US Pub.2020/0150566).
Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) teach all of the limitations of claim 11, upon which claim 12 depends.
However, Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) fail to teach the distance having any relation to an insulation distance or safety standard.
Regarding claim 12, Mitsuoka et al. (US Pub.2007/0036594) teach a fixing device (fig.1&8, #14/#101) with a metal frame (fig.5, #82) and various components in close proximity to the fixing rollers (see fig.10-12); wherein taking into account an appropriate insulation distance is disclosed (para.0076).
Regarding claim 12, Fujiwara et al. (US Pub.2020/0150566) teach a fixing device (fig.2) and discloses that certain safety standards regarding distances are known to be considered in relation to fixing device design (para.0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the predetermined distance in Takahashi et al. (US Pub.2015/0293481) as being at or more than an insulation distance as disclosed by Mitsuoka et al. (US Pub.2007/0036594) in order to avoid trouble caused by high voltage environments.
In light of the teachings of Mitsuoka et al. (US Pub.2007/0036594) and Fujiwara et al. (US Pub.2020/0150566), the Office holds that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would think to take into consideration these teachings when creating the fixing device and that the distance considerations would be easily arrived at without undue experimentation.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA K ROTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2154. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30AM-3:30 PM.
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.
/LKR/
10/9/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
