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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “process member”, “a first member”, “a second member”, “an electrode member” in claims 1 and 2; “a protruding section” in claims 3-6; “a third member” in claims 4 and 6; and “a rotating member” of claims 10, 18, 26 and 34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 9, 14-16, 18, 21-22, 25, 30-32, 34, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit (fig.1, #15) to be used in an apparatus main body of an image forming apparatus (see fig.1), the process unit comprising: a process member to be used to form an image (fig.2, #81 & #85); a first member (fig.2&3, #52) including a first resin material (para.0090); a second member (fig.2&3, #53) including a second resin material having higher flame retardant capability than the first resin material (para.0124); and an electrode member including a contact section (fig.2, #88) configured to be supplied with power from the apparatus main body (fig.2, via #131; para.0175), the electrode member being configured to electrically connect with the process member (para.0151), wherein the first member is a part of a frame of the process unit (fig.2-3, #52 is part of frame #18 holding #81& #85), and at least a part of the second member is located at a position closer to the contact section than a part of the first member closest to the contact section and between the contact section and the part of the first member closest to the contact section (fig.5, part of #53 adjacent to indicator #50 is closer to #88 than far end part of #52 near indicator #71 and is between #88 and far end of #52).
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit (fig.1, #15) to be used in an apparatus main body of an image forming apparatus (see fig.1), the process unit comprising: a process member to be used to form an image (fig.2, #81 & #85); a first member (fig.2&3, #52) including a first resin material (para.0090); a second member (fig.2&3, #53) including a second resin material having higher flame retardant capability than the first resin material (para.0124); and an electrode member including a contact section (fig.2, #88) configured to be supplied with power from the apparatus main body (fig.2, via #131; para.0175), the electrode member being configured to electrically connect with the process member (para.0151), wherein the first member is a part of a frame of the process unit (fig.2-3, #52 is part of frame #18 holding #81& #85), and the contact section is supported by the second member (fig.1&2, if cartridge #15 is set down on a surface with #53 place downward, #88 will be supported by #53 via interaction with #52).
Regarding claims 9 and 25, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit wherein the electrode member includes a conductive resin material (para.0155).
Regarding claims 14 and 30, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit wherein the process unit is attachable to and detachable from the apparatus main body (fig.1, through opening #5).
Regarding claims 15 and 31, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit wherein the first member supports the process member (fig.2&3, #85 and #81 supported by #52).
Regarding claims 16 and 32, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit wherein the second member is integrally coupled to the first member (fig.4-8, #53 coupled to #52).
Regarding claims 18 and 34, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit wherein the process member is a rotating member (fig.2, #81U both rotate), and at least a part of the second member is located between the contact section and the first member in a rotational axis direction of the process member (fig.5, in the left-right direction, some portion of #53 is between #88 and another portion of #52).
Regarding claims 21 and 37, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit wherein the second member is a part of the frame (fig.6A&B, #53 is also part of frame #18).
Regarding claims 22 and 38, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches an image forming apparatus (fig.1) for forming an image on a recording medium comprising: an apparatus main body (fig.1, #2); and the process unit according to claim 1, or alternately claim 2, that is attachable to and detachable from the apparatus main body (see #15 in fig.1 and rejection of claims 1 and 2 herein).
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.
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) in view of Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013).
Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, upon which claims 7 and 23 depend.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, the Office contends that since the UL94 is a way of grading flame-retardancy and Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) discloses the use of a resin (para.0090) and the use of a resin that is flame-retardant (para.0124), the limitations of claim 7 and 23 would necessarily be met.
In the event that the applicants find this unpersuasive, the Office draws the applicants’ attention to Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013) which is directed to forming different pieces of an image forming apparatus frame (fig.3, #10A 
B/#12) of different resins (para.0055-0057) and wherein both the flame-retardant resin and the non-flame-retardant resin are graded according to the UL94 standards (para.0056-0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the undisclosed ratings of the resins in Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) by using the UL94 ratings as disclosed in Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013) because the UL94 is the plastics flammability standard used by the Underwriters Laboratories of the United States (para.0057).
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) or Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) in view of Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013) as applied to claims 7 and 23 above, and further in view of Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013) with support from Protolabs (03/01/2019).
Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) or Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) in view of Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013) teach all of the limitations of claims 7 and 23, upon which claims 8 and 24 depend.
However, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) merely disclose the use of a resin and a flame-retardant resin and do no explicitly state what the flame-retardancy ratings for each are.
Regarding claims 8 and 24, Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013) is directed to forming different pieces of an image forming apparatus frame (fig.3, #10A 
B/#12) of different resins (para.0055-0057) and wherein the flame-retardant resin has a retardancy different than HB (para.0056) and the non-flame-retardant resin has a retardancy of HB (para.0057).
From the above teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the UL94 properties of the resins of Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) according to the desired protective affect akin to in Hashizume et al. (US Pub.2019/0307013) because reduced use of flame-retardant resins may reduce the cost of the process unit and the UL94 ratings are indicative of a burn rate, time to extinguish, and whether dropped resin is flaming or not (see for reference the descriptive summary attachment by Protolabs, 3/1/2019). Since the burn and drip/flaming drip properties are a result that can come from the particular UL94 rating of a material to be used, the Office contends that the features of claims 8 and 24 would likely be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art in order to select the appropriate resin materials for a use in the cartridge around the high heat generating charging device which is being housed therein.
Claims 12 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) in view of Matsumura et al. (US Pub.2015/0293492).
Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, upon which claims 12 and 28 depend.
Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches a process unit wherein the electrode member includes a conductive resin material (para.0155).
However, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) fails to teach the electrode member including a metal material.
Regarding claims 12 and 28, Matsumura et al. (US Pub.2015/0293492) teach an electrode (fig.4, #21/#21A) for a process unit in an image forming apparatus (fig.2) wherein the electrode is formed of an electroconductive resin which includes a metal material (para.0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the undisclosed electroconductive resin of Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) by using a resin with metal particles as in Matsumura et al. (US Pub.2015/0293492) because it is one of finite options used in the art (para.0068) and could be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.
Claims 19 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) in view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub.2005/0013628).
Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, upon which claims 19 and 35 depend.
However, beyond discussing a resin, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) fails to discuss specifics thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki et al. (US Pub.2005/0013628) teach a process unit for use in an image forming apparatus wherein a unit housing is comprised of a polystyrene resin (para.0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the undisclosed resin of the drum frame in Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) by using a high-impact polystyrene as in Suzuki et al. (US Pub.2005/0013628) because it is a know resin material to use in a cartridge housing (para.0081-0082).
Claims 20 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) in view of Miyabe et al. (US Pub.2002/0191981).
Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, upon which claims 20 and 36 depend.
However, beyond discussing a resin and a flame-retardant resin, Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) fails to discuss specifics thereof.
Regarding claims 20 and 36, Miyabe et al. (US Pub.2002/0191981) teach a process unit (fig.1) for use with an image forming apparatus (fig.2) comprising a flame-retardant resin wherein the member includes a mixed resin of styrene (para.0026-0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the non-descript flame-retardant resin of Sakuma (US Pub.2015/0125179) by using a styrene one as in Miyabe et al. (US Pub.2002/0191981) because it is a known resin in the art used for this purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 26, 27, 29 and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “the second member includes: an electrode seating surface on which the electrode member is located; and a protruding section protruding in a direction perpendicular to the electrode seating surface” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 3 and 5.
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “process member is any one of an image bearing member, a developer carrying member, and a charging member” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 13 and 29.
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “electrode member is coupled so as to be in contact with at least the second member” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 17 and 33.
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “a third member that is integrally coupled to the first member and includes the second resin material … includes an electrode seating surface on which the electrode member is located; and the third member includes a protruding section protruding beyond the electrode seating surface in a direction perpendicular to the electrode seating surface” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 4 and 6.
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “…the second member and the electrode member are formed integrally with each other … are a bearing member that rotationally supports the process member … the electrode member includes: … and a gate section for injecting resin during formation; …. the connection section and the gate section are included in the contact section, and the shaft support section overlaps at least a part of the contact section” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 10, 11, 26 & 27.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants are thanked for their thorough explanation of the invention.
At the top of p.15, the Applicants’ arguments against the reference of Sakuma regarding claim 1 revolves around the final passage of claim 1, alleging that it is not taught and then asserting that the suppressing of ignition could not be achieved by the configuration of Sakuma. While the Office appreciates this point, the suppressing operation is not present in the claim language. Additionally, while the Office recognizes that the configuration of Sakuma does not align with the Applicants’ intentions concerning the invention, the Office maintains that the claim language, as presented, is met as delineated in the rejection above. As a result, the Office finds this argument to be unpersuasive.
Similarly, regarding the rejection of claim 2, the Applicants merely allege that the final phrase is not taught without particularly addressing the rationale set forth in the rejection. As a result, the Office cannot find this argument to be persuasive either. The claim language has been maintained and thus still meets the rationale set forth in the original rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 on 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/
11/14/2025
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852