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 .
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation “the positioning direction of the rotational axis”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, it is unclear whether and how such “positioning direction of the rotational axis” differs, if at all, from the “positioning direction”. As such, there is no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner shall construe the limitations as best as one is able to do so.
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)(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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Noguchi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0405577.
Initially, Examiner notes that noting in the claims restricts the various extents of the claimed “portions”. So long as the claimed “portions” include any recited subcomponents, and are capable of accomplishing the recited functional limitations, if any, the “portions” can be extended at will to the ends of the cartridge. Similarly, nothing in the claims prohibits one portion from overlapping another, either entirely or in part. Nor does the claimed “region” have any meaningful limitation, as it is merely “surrounded by” lines drawn through “portions”, whose extents are limited only by the extent of the cartridge.
Moreover, the generic term “contact” includes the mutually exclusive species of direct contact and indirect contact.
Regarding independent claim 1, a cartridge (fig 24, ref 20) which a toner container (40) is attachable to and detachable from (cf figs 23, 24), the cartridge including a development roller (31) and a storage unit (the unit before the developing roller into which the toner is replenished from the toner container) for storing toner to be carried by the development roller, the cartridge comprising:
an attachment portion (the “portion” comprising the entirety of the cartridge, including the replenishment port 32a) having a supply inlet (32a) through which toner is supplied to the storage unit from outside of the cartridge, wherein the toner container is attachable to and detachable from the attachment portion (cf figs 23, 24), and the attachment portion is configured so that the toner container is to be attached to the attachment portion by being downwardly moved (this limitation is met whenever the toner container is retrieved from a very, very high shelf) in a state that the cartridge is oriented in a positioning direction in which the attachment portion is positioned above the storage unit (the direction as shown in fig 24) and that the cartridge is in contact with a horizontal plane (all portions of the cartridge are in indirect contact through the intervening elements with any horizontal plane anywhere); and
a first contact portion, a second contact portion, and a third contact portion which are disposed on a bottom surface (each of the first, second, and third “portions” encompass the entirety of the cartridge, including some portion of each on the bottom surface) of the cartridge and configured to be brought into contact with the horizontal plane (there is no requirement that the first, second, and third “portions” simultaneously contact, therefore one can freely rotate the cartridge to make direct contact with any horizontal plane; additionally and alternatively, one that throw the cartridge upward, catch it, then place it somewhere where it makes indirect contact with any horizontal plane through intervening elements),
wherein, when the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction is viewed in a gravity direction, at least a part of the attachment portion overlaps with a first region, where the first region is surrounded by a first virtual line connecting the first contact portion and the second contact portion, a second virtual line connecting the second contact portion and the third contact portion, a third virtual line connecting the third contact portion and the first contact portion, the first contact portion, the second contact portion, and the third contact portion (because each of the first, second, and third “portions” span the entirety of the cartridge, and because the attachment portion is on the cartridge, this limitation is always met by drawing a line connecting the extremes of each of the first, second, and third “portions”, with the first region encompassing the projection of the cartridge viewed in the gravity direction).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, wherein, when the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction is viewed in the gravity direction, a center of the attachment portion overlaps with the first region (“a center” is broad enough to include anything not exactly at the edge, and because the attachment portion has some extent, at least some of it is not exactly at the edge, therefore, because the first region is broad enough to encompass the entirety of the cartridge, the center overlaps the first region in the gravity direction).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2, wherein the attachment portion has a hole (figs 16, showing the hole) into which a tip end portion of the toner container (figs 8 showing the tip end portion) is inserted, and the hole has a cylindrical inner circumferential surface (figs 25 showing the cylindrical inner circumferential surface in perspective), and
wherein the center of the attachment portion coincides with a center of the hole (figs 16).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 2, wherein, in the state that the cartridge is oriented in the positioning direction and is in contact with the horizontal plane, the attachment portion includes an upwardly projecting engagement shaft (the same cylindrical inner circumferential surface of claim 3) for engaging with the toner container to determine a position of the toner container in a direction orthogonal to an attachment direction in which the toner container is attached to the attachment portion (figs 16), and
wherein the center of the attachment portion coincides with a center axis of the upwardly projecting engagement shaft (figs 16).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 2,
wherein, in the state that the cartridge is oriented in the positioning direction and is in contact with the horizontal plane, the attachment portion includes a rotation member configured to rotate about a rotational axis extending in the gravity direction (¶ 96, describing the rotation of the shutter member, so located whenever the shutter member 41 is provided on the replenishment port), and
wherein the center of the attachment portion coincides with the rotational axis (figs 16).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, wherein, when the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction and in contact with the horizontal plane is viewed in the gravity direction, the first contact portion overlaps with the at least a part of the attachment portion (neither “portion” is meaningfully limited, and therefore they can be chosen so as to overlap in whole or in part).
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, wherein, when the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction and in contact with the horizontal plane is viewed in the gravity direction, a center of gravity of the cartridge overlaps with the first region (the first region is not meaningfully limited, and therefore can be chosen so as to encompass the entirety of the projection of the cartridge viewed in the gravity direction, and the center of gravity must be located somewhere within the bounds of the cartridge, again noting that indirect contact with any horizontal plane suffices).
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 7, wherein the attachment portion is located at a position farther from a center of the cartridge than the center of gravity along a direction of a rotational axis of the development roller (“a center” of the cartridge is any location not exactly at its edge, and because the center of gravity will never be located exactly at its edge, one can always choose “a center” farther away than the center of gravity).
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, wherein the attachment portion is disposed at an end portion of the cartridge in a direction of a rotational axis of the development roller (there is no meaningful extent to an “end portion” so one is free to extend the end “portion” to include at least some of the attachment portion).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1, wherein, when the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction and in contact with the horizontal plane is viewed in the gravity direction, a width of the first contact portion in a direction orthogonal to both a direction of a rotational axis of the development roller and the gravity direction is larger than a width of the first contact portion in the positioning direction of the rotational axis (nothing limits the extent of the various “portions”, therefore one is free to extend or diminish the portion such that this limitation is always met).
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 10, wherein, when the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction and in contact with the horizontal plane is viewed in the gravity direction, a width of the second contact portion in the positioning direction orthogonal to both the positioning direction of the rotational axis and the gravity direction is larger than the width of the second contact portion in the positioning direction of the rotational axis (nothing limits the extent of the various “portions”, therefore one is free to extend or diminish the portion such that this limitation is always met).
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1, further comprising a photosensitive drum (21) configured to be supplied with toner from the development roller.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 12, wherein, in the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction and in contact with the horizontal plane, the attachment portion is positioned above the photosensitive drum (fig 24).
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 1, wherein, in the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction and in contact with the horizontal plane, the first contact portion, the second contact portion, and the third contact portion downwardly project (by definition, the portions must include some of the bottom of the cartridge as viewed in fig 24, so whenever one limits the portions to exclude some of the top of the cartridge, they project downwardly).
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 14, further comprising a fourth contact portion configured to be brought into contact with the horizontal plane (again, indirect contact will suffice), at a position different from the first contact portion, the second contact portion, and the third contact portion (nothing excludes overlapping portions, so one is free to add as many portions as they wish, so long as one excludes a different point from the definition of each portion),
wherein, in the cartridge oriented in the positioning direction and in contact with the horizontal plane, the fourth contact portion projects downwardly (although the fourth portion is not required to include some of the bottom of the cartridge as viewed in fig 24, as are the first through third portions, nothing excludes it either, so whenever one limits the fourth portion to exclude some of the top of the cartridge, it projects downwardly whenever it also includes some of the bottom of the cartridge).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0405577, in view of Willis, U.S. Pat. No. 6,349,191; Michlin, U.S. Pat. No. 5,337,126; Martin et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0133883; Furuhata, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0222915; Numagami et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0126131; and Hiroshi, JP 2004-102137.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 above over Noguchi et al. are predicated on the claims failing to provide any meaningful limits to the extent of the various “portions”, and failing to specify direct or indirect contact. Examiner assumes arguendo, without conceding, that the claims require direct contact with a horizontal surface by limited elements specifically designed to maintain such direct contact despite varying forces. The reasoning of the rejections of claims 1-15 over Noguchi et al. above are repeated herein with the following modifications:
In Noguchi et al. fig 24, one can see the patently precarious position at which the cartridge dangles on a precipice out of the image forming apparatus. Refilling toner into a container can lead to spills. Willis at col 2, ll 29 – 48. Without adequate sealing between the refilling container and the hopper, improperly refilling a cartridge can lead to what Michlin aptly describes as a “toner mess”. Michlin at col 2, ll 38 – 44. Moreover, Willis recognizes the problems associated with such a toner mess occurring inside the image forming apparatus. Willis at col 2, ll 29-48. Noguchi et al. also recognize that by drawing the cartridge out of the image forming apparatus, a user may more easily refill the cartridge, and do so from a much larger refilling container. Noguchi et al. at ¶ 162. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have recognized the benefits of removing a cartridge from the image forming apparatus during the refilling process to avoid a toner mess inside the apparatus, while also permitting a much larger refilling container.
Specialized jigs to hold cartridges stably on horizontal surfaces during refilling and remanufacturing are known in the art. See, e.g.: Martin et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0133883, ¶ 35; Furuhata, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0222915, ¶ 139; and, Numagami et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0126131, ¶ 199. However, Hiroshi teaches that specialized jigs are not required to avoid toppling when working on a cartridge to maintain stable contact with a flat working surface.
Hiroshi teaches a waste toner collecting container that occasionally needs to be worked on to avoid clumping toner therein clogging it. ¶ 3. Even when placed on a flat surface to be worked upon, ¶ 42, there is a danger of toppling, ¶ 11. Such toppling can lead to a toner mess. To overcome that, Horoshi provides at least three, and preferably, four legs to a container, ¶ 11, 42, refs 90, protruding from the bottom of the container to make stable contact with the working surface, ¶ 42. In order to better balance the center of gravity against these toppling forces that may be applied while working on the container, Hiroshi provides such legs at the four corners of the container, ¶ 42, outside of the container’s center of gravity.
With the base device of Noguchi et al., one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would easily recognize the precarious placement of the cartridge to be refilled, which can easily lead to a toner mess if the user is not extremely careful. Although specialized holding and securing devices to mitigate the toner mess of the precariously placed toner cartridge on such a precipice, users have ready access to horizontal surfaces. Utilizing such horizontal surfaces while refilling and remanufacturing, and in a way that does not require specialized jigs, is known in the art through the use of adding legs to the cartridge for stability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide legs as the contact portions of Noguchi et al. Such legs would make direct contact with a horizontal surface readily available to a user to work upon the cartridge, with sufficient stability to avoid a toner mess. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have placed such legs relative to the center of gravity of the cartridge in such a manner as to promote stability while the user imparts the various forces required to attach and detach a large toner refilling container.
More specifically as modified:
Regarding independent claim 1, the contact portions are the various legs at the corners, with the first region the region bounded by the legs. The attachment portion is placed so as to be within this region, to balance the center of gravity against the various forces the user applies while attaching and detaching the toner refilling container.
Regarding claim 6, the placement of the legs balances the center of gravity of the cartridge with the various forces the user imparts, and as such, placing a leg under the attachment portion promotes stability during attachment and detachment.
Regarding claim 8, even as more narrowly construed, Noguchi et al. as a base reference still teach these limitations as modified to include legs for stability.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Examiner cannot import limitations from the Specification into the claims, MPEP 2111.01 (II), unless such limitations clearly set forth a definition different from terms’ ordinary and customary meanings, MPEP 2111.01 (IV)(A). Such also includes limitations as to function, purpose, or effect. The configuration of a claimed device, including shapes, is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device is significant. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) (citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), whose claims included functional limitations). Moreover, when as here, the combined prior art only differs in relative dimensions, and nothing indicates that such relative dimensions would perform any differently than the prior art, there is no patentable distinction. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) (citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), whose claims included no functional limitations at all).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the legs project downwardly so as to make direct contact with the horizontal working surface.
The remaining limitations are unaffected by modifying Noguchi et al. as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852