Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/595,699

IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Mar 05, 2024
Priority
Mar 10, 2023 — JP 2023-037890
Examiner
HEREDIA OCASIO, ARLENE J
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
398 granted / 529 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
69.9%
+29.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
§112
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 529 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 5, 6, and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/12/2025. Specification TITLE - 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. While the office recognizes the amended title as a bona fide attempt to address the previous objection to the title, having a generic brush member is not particularly indicative of the invention. A substantial number of image forming systems have a brush member. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term "imaginary penetrating depth" lacks antecedent basis in the specification. Claim Interpretation The claims have been amended to avoid a rebuttal presumption that the claim elements are to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 4, 9-14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations "an imaginary penetrating depth of the bristles in the end portion" and "an imaginary penetrating depth of the bristles in the inner portion". The Office finds no description of imaginary bristle depth nor penetrating depth in the originally filed specification. 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, 4, 9-14, 21, and 22 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 recites the limitations "an imaginary penetrating depth of the bristles in the end portion" and "an imaginary penetrating depth of the bristles in the inner portion". As stated above, the specification offers no antecedence basis for the term imaginary penetrating depth and the Office finds no description of such features, rendering the claims indefinite. This issue is so severe that it precludes a reasonable search over prior art as one skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-14, 21, and 22 are not currently subject to a prior art rejection, but allowable subject matter cannot be determined due to the impact that possible amendments relating to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 may have on the claim meaning and scope. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30. 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. /Arlene Heredia Ocasio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 05, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12638800
IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM PERFORMING TEMPERATURE CONTROL OF SHEET LAMINATOR BASED ON OPERATION MODES OF THE IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM
2y 0m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12632003
CARTRIDGE HAVING A FRAME SUPPORTING A DEVELOPING ROLLER WITH THE FRAME BEING MOVABLE BETWEEN A DEVELOPING POSITION AND A SPACED POSITION
3y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12631997
PRINTING SYSTEM, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 1m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12625446
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 6m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12619175
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
1y 10m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+3.9%)
1y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 529 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month