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 Applicant is thanked for the bona fide attempt at amending the title; however, title of the invention is still 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.
Claim 4 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 what is meant by “by ½ of the region” at the end of the claim. It is unclear to which clause or subject this portion is referring to and what it is meaning to define. Revision for clarity is required.
Claim 5 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 what is meant by “by 2/3 of the region” at the end of the claim. It is unclear to which clause or subject this portion is referring to and what it is meaning to define. Revision for clarity is required.
Claim 6 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 what is meant by “by 3/4 of the region” at the end of the claim. It is unclear to which clause or subject this portion is referring to and what it is meaning to define. Revision for clarity is required.
Election/Restrictions
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claims directed to Species II & III, non-elected without traverse. Accordingly, claims 15-33 should be cancelled with any response that puts the entire elected claim set in condition for allowance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 7-14 are allowed.
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “a developing roller … convey the toner to a developing position …a supplying roller …supply only the toner to the developing roller … a regulating … a first magnet provided non rotationally and fixedly inside the developing …. a second magnet provided non rotationally and fixedly inside the supplying …opposed to the first magnetic pole and which is different in polarity … a third magnetic pole …downstream of the second … and a fourth magnetic pole … downstream of and adjacent to the third …the same in polarity as the third …a position where a magnetic flux density of the third magnetic pole in a normal direction of the supplying roller is maximum is downstream of … where the supplying roller is closest to the developing roller, and is upstream of … where the regulating member is closest … a region where an absolute value of a magnetic flux density in the normal direction of the supplying roller is 5 [mT] or less exists downstream of … where the magnetic flux density of the third magnetic pole in the normal direction of the supplying roller is maximum, and exists upstream of …where a magnetic flux density of the fourth magnetic pole in the normal direction … is maximum, wherein a most upstream position of the region … exists above a rotation center of the supplying roller in a vertical direction, and wherein an absolute value of a magnetic flux density in a tangential direction of the supplying roller in the most upstream position of the region is larger than an absolute value of a magnetic flux density in the normal direction of the supplying roller in the most upstream position of the region” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 1-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On p.25, the applicant asserts “Claims 1 and 4-6 have been amended to address the comments on pages 3 and 4 of the Office Action… all of the claims are in full compliance with the particularity and distinctness requirements of the statute”. Claims 4-6, while amended, have not been amended in a manner that would make the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C.112 moot and no argument has been presented as to why the rejection was improper. As a result, the rejections of claims 4-6 have been maintained.
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/
3/10/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852