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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 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.
Claim 1 introduces “one of the at least one connection portion includes a conductive portion… the conductive portion includes a first docking portion… any point of the first side plate is configured as a reference point… the at least one connection portion includes at least two connection portions; the at least two connection portions include a first connection portion and a second connection portion… a distance between the first docking portion and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L1, value of L1 of the first connection portion differs than value of L1 of the second connection portion along the first direction.” In this collection of interrelated items, several items are introduced as a singular item. The wording of the claim is not clear that each of the connection portions has any of the following: a conductive portion and/or a first docking portion. As such, since the distance between the (singular) reference point and the first docking station (of the conductive portion of the one of the at least one connection portion) is defined as L1, it is unclear how the second connection portion has an L1 value in the first place (since L1 is defined by two distinct and singular points) and unclear how the L1 value changes since the second connection portion is not defined as having a docking portion, first or otherwise. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. Claim 1 would benefit from revision for clarity.
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12 introduces “one of the at least one connection portion includes a conductive portion… the conductive portion includes a first docking portion… any point of the first side plate is configured as a reference point; the at least one connection portion includes at least two connection portions; the at least two connection portions include a first connection portion and a second connection portion… a distance between the first docking portion and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L1, value of L1 of the first connection portion differs than value of L1 of the second connection portion along the first direction.” In this collection of interrelated items, several items are introduced as a singular item. The wording of the claim is not clear that each of the connection portions has any of the following: a conductive portion and/or a first docking portion. As such, since the distance between the (singular) reference point and the first docking station (of the conductive portion of the one of the at least one connection portion) is defined as L1, it is unclear how the second connection portion has an L1 value in the first place (since L1 is defined by two distinct and singular points) and unclear how the L1 value changes since the second connection portion is not defined as having a docking portion, first or otherwise. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. Claim 12 would benefit from revision for clarity.
Claims 13-14 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.
Claim 13 introduces “one of the at least one connection portion includes a conductive portion… the conductive portion includes a first docking portion… any point of the first side plate is configured as a reference point… the at least one connection portion includes at least two connection portions; the at least two connection portions include a first connection portion and a second connection portion… a distance between the first docking portion and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L1, value of L1 of the first connection portion differs than value of L1 of the second connection portion along the first direction.” In this collection of interrelated items, several items are introduced as a singular item. The wording of the claim is not clear that each of the connection portions has any of the following: a conductive portion and/or a first docking portion. As such, since the distance between the (singular) reference point and the first docking station (of the conductive portion of the one of the at least one connection portion) is defined as L1, it is unclear how the second connection portion has an L1 value in the first place (since L1 is defined by two distinct and singular points) and unclear how the L1 value changes since the second connection portion is not defined as having a docking portion, first or otherwise. As such, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claims are. Claim 13 would benefit from revision for clarity.
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 1-3, 5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket (fig.1&4, #3), configured to carry a process cartridge (fig.4, #8Y-K), comprising: a bracket main body (fig.1,4,&11B, #30); and at least one connection portion (fig.13A&B, #44-47), disposed on the bracket main body (see fig.1&11B), wherein: one of the at least one connection portion includes a conductive portion configured to directly electrically connect (fig.13A, #47 integrally connected to fig.10A-11A, #32; para.0071-0072) a contact portion of a chip on the process cartridge (fig.10D, #81) and an electrical contact portion of an image-forming apparatus (fig.13A, #9; para.0072&0141); the bracket main body includes a first side plate (fig.1, #30L; para.0083) and a second side plate (fig.1, #30R; para.0083) arranged sequentially along a first direction (fig.1, along direction parallel to #30F); the conductive portion includes a first docking portion configured to be electrically connected to the electrical contact portion of the image-forming apparatus (fig.13B, any one of #44-#47); any point of the first side plate is configured as a reference point (fig.1, in this case reference point is in the vicinity of #92K); the at least one connection portion includes at least two connection portions (fig.1, #47K-Y is in a quantity of four); the at least two connection portions include a first connection portion and a second connection portion arranged sequentially along a second direction (fig.1, see alignment of #47K-Y, 1st: #47K, 2nd: #47C); the second direction is a direction of installing the installation bracket into the image-forming apparatus (fig.1, alignment of #47K-Y parallel to installation guide rail #49); the second direction intersects with the first direction(fig.1, direction of #49 intersects with direction along #30F); and a distance between the first docking portion and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L1, value of L1 of the first connection portion differs than value of L1 of the second connection portion along the first direction (fig.1, if reference point is in the vicinity of #92K, distance to #47C is greater than distance to #47K in a direction that is pointed predominantly in the first direction).
Regarding claim 2, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket wherein: the one of the at least one connection portion is located on the second side plate (fig.1, #44Y-K to #47Y-K on #30R); when the installation bracket is installed in the image-forming apparatus (fig.13A&B), the second side plate is adjacent to the electrical contact portion of the image-forming apparatus relative to the first side plate (fig.13B, #30R adjacent to #9 and #94-#96); and when the installation bracket is configured to carry the process cartridge, the one of the at least one connection portion is capable of being electrically connected to the process cartridge (para.0094,0102&fig.10A-C, #81 contacts #32).
Regarding claim 3, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket wherein: a distance between a side of the second side plate away from the first side plate and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L2, wherein L1>L2 (fig.13B, all of #44-47 project from wall #30R and are thus farther away than #30R would be from any point on #30L).
Regarding claim 5, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket wherein: a distance between the one of the at least one connection portion and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L3, wherein L3≤L1 (fig.13B, each of #44-#47 appear to have a portion of the connecting portion set back slightly from the ‘docking portion’ surface that #9 and #94-96 contact, also a portion of the connection portion passes through #30 and is set closer to the wall #30L).
Regarding claim 8, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket wherein: the second side plate is provided with a first groove engaged with the process cartridge for position confining (fig.11B, unlabeled groove in which #46Y-K exist).
Regarding claim 9, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket wherein: the one of the at least one connection portion includes an avoiding groove disposed at a position of the one of the at least one connection portion corresponding to the first groove (fig.1, #30V described as avoiding surface in para.0142; positioned to overlap corresponding to areas of #46Cin fig.11B which viewed from the axial ends of the drums).
Regarding claim 10, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket wherein: the conductive portion includes a second docking portion configured to be electrically connected to the contact portion of the chip on the process cartridge (para.0071: #32 is made up of contacts, plural); and the second docking portion is elastic (fig.10A-D, the contact material has some amount of elasticity under duress).
Regarding claim 11, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an installation bracket wherein: the one of the at least one connection portion and the bracket main body are an integrated structure or separate structures (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach a process cartridge assembly (fig.4), comprising: an installation bracket (fig.1&4, #3) and a process cartridge (fig.4, #8Y-K), wherein: the installation bracket is configured to carry the process cartridge (see fig.3A) and includes a bracket main body (fig.1,4,&11B, #30) and at least one connection portion disposed on the bracket main body (fig.13A&B, #44-47 on #30); and one of the at least one connection portion includes a conductive portion configured to directly electrically connect (fig.13A, #47 integrally connected to fig.10A-11A, #32; para.0071-0072) a contact portion of a chip on the process cartridge (fig.10D, #81) and an electrical contact portion of an image-forming apparatus (fig.13A, #9; para.0072&0141); and the process cartridge is installed on the installation bracket (fig.4&10C); and the process cartridge includes the contact portion (fig.4, #81; fig.7, #64) electrically connected to the conductive portion (fig.13A, #47 integrally connected to fig.10A-11A, #32; para.0071-0072); the bracket main body includes a first side plate (fig.1, #30L; para.0083) and a second side plate (fig.1, #30R; para.0083) arranged sequentially along a first direction (fig.1, along direction parallel to #30F); the conductive portion includes a first docking portion configured to be electrically connected to the electrical contact portion of the image-forming apparatus (fig.13B, any one of #44-#47); any point of the first side plate is configured as a reference point (fig.1, in this case reference point is in the vicinity of #92K); the at least one connection portion includes at least two connection portions (fig.1, see alignment of #47K-Y, 1st: #47K, 2nd: #47C); the at least two connection portions include a first connection portion and a second connection portion arranged sequentially along a second direction (fig.1, see alignment of #47K-Y); the second direction is a direction of installing the installation bracket into the image-forming apparatus (fig.1, alignment of #47K-Y parallel to installation guide rail #49); the second direction intersects with the first direction(fig.1, direction of #49 intersects with direction along #30F); and a distance between the first docking portion and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L1, value of L1 of the first connection portion differs than value of L1 of the second connection portion along the first direction (fig.1, if reference point is in the vicinity of #92K, distance to #47C is greater than distance to #47K in a direction that is pointed predominantly in the first direction).
Regarding claim 13, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an image-forming apparatus (fig.2), comprising: an electrical contact portion (fig.3C, any of #94Y-K, #95Y-K, #96Y-K); and an installation bracket (fig.1&4, #3) disposed removably (see fig.3A) and including a bracket main body (fig.1,4,&11B, #30), at least one connection portion disposed on the bracket main body (fig.13A&B, #44-47 on #30) and one of the at least one connection portion including a conductive portion (fig.13A, #47 integrally connected to fig.10A-11A, #32; para.0071-0072), wherein when the installation bracket is installed in the image-forming apparatus (fig.13A&B), the conductive portion is directly electrically connected to the electrical contact portion (fig.13A, #47 integrally connected to fig.10A-11A, #32; para.0071-0072) and a contact portion of a chip on a process cartridge (portion (fig.4, #81; fig.7, #64); the bracket main body includes a first side plate (fig.1, #30L; para.0083) and a second side plate (fig.1, #30R; para.0083) arranged sequentially along a first direction (fig.1, along direction parallel to #30F); the conductive portion includes a first docking portion configured to be electrically connected to the electrical contact portion of the image-forming apparatus (fig.13B, any one of #44-#47); any point of the first side plate is configured as a reference point (fig.1, in this case reference point is in the vicinity of #92K); the at least one connection portion includes at least two connection portions (fig.1, see alignment of #47K-Y, 1st: #47K, 2nd: #47C); the at least two connection portions include a first connection portion and a second connection portion arranged sequentially along a second direction (fig.1, see alignment of #47K-Y); the second direction is a direction of installing the installation bracket into the image-forming apparatus (fig.1, alignment of #47K-Y parallel to installation guide rail #49); the second direction intersects with the first direction(fig.1, direction of #49 intersects with direction along #30F); and a distance between the first docking portion and the reference point along the first direction of the installation bracket is L1, value of L1 of the first connection portion differs than value of L1 of the second connection portion along the first direction (fig.1, if reference point is in the vicinity of #92K, distance to #47C is greater than distance to #47K in a direction that is pointed predominantly in the first direction).
Regarding claim 14, Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) teach an image-forming apparatus further including: the process cartridge (fig.4, #8Y-K), wherein the process cartridge is installed on the installation bracket (see fig.3A) and includes the contact portion (fig.10A-D, #81 and/or fig.7, #64); and when the process cartridge is installed on the installation bracket (fig.4) and the installation bracket is installed in the image-forming apparatus (fig.3A), the conductive portion is electrically connected to the electrical contact portion and the contact portion respectively (para.0095&0102).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant mainly asserts that Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) fail to teach the newly added claim limitations, then discusses the subject matter of claim 5 and fig.13B of Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003). The Office respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to be interpreting the claim language as having more specifics and clear definitions than is currently presented in the claim language. As can be seen from the rejections above and the discussion in the section under 35 U.S.C.112, the existing claim language is broad, indefinite, and confusing. This opens the claims up to interpretations counter to what the applicant intends. Presuming that the applicant is attempting to claim the features shown (not particularly clearly) in figs. 3&4 where each set of contacts #132a1 on each of the #132 are progressively set inward on the X direction at each new #132 in the Y direction (also described in cited para.0040 of the specification), this structure may be an avenue for exploration toward patentability. However, the current claim set fails in this endeavor. Since only one reference point is claimed without regard for specific position, the final clause of claims 1, 12, and 13 must be interpreted as the distance away from that singular point for two items disposed at laterally different positions. The Office asserts that Kubo et al. (US Pub.2021/0034003) technically meets this claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/
2/3/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852