Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/758,122

IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CARTRIDGE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 28, 2024
Priority
Jun 29, 2023 — JP 2023-107185
Examiner
ROTH, LAURA K
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
670 granted / 809 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
834
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 809 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 April 2026 has been entered. 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 1-7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018). Regarding claim 1, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1), comprising: a photosensitive drum (fig.1, #2) by emitting laser light (para.0037); an exposing portion that exposes the photosensitive drum (fig.1, #6); a developing portion (fig.1&3, #4) that includes a frame body (fig.3&4 #40) that has a toner accommodating portion (fig.3&4, space containing #44 & #45) in which toner is accommodated (para.0044), a developing roller (fig.3&4, #41) that develops an electrostatic image, formed on the photosensitive drum by the laser light (para.0037), by toner accommodated in the toner accommodating portion, and a light-transmitting portion attached to the frame body (fig.4, #50); and a sensing portion (fig.4, #51&#52) that includes a light-emitting portion that emits light (fig.4, #51), and a light-receiving portion (fig.4, #52) that receives the light that is emitted from the light-emitting portion, and that passes through inside of the toner accommodating portion via the light-transmitting portion and exits to outside of the toner accommodating portion (para.0052-0053), the sensing portion emitting a sensing signal in accordance with a level of light received at the light-receiving portion (para.0070), wherein the light-transmitting portion includes a first lightguide portion that guides the light emitted from the light-emitting portion to the inside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.4, #53 guides light from #51), the first lightguide portion including a first incident surface into which the light emitted by the light-emitting portion enters (fig.4, end face of #53 facing #51) and a first exiting surface from which the light, entering from the first incident surface, exits toward the inside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.7, #53b; para.0058), and a second lightguide portion that guides the light that has passed through the inside of the toner accommodating portion to the light-receiving portion (fig.4, #54 guides light to #52), the second lightguide portion including a second incident surface into which the light passing through the inside of the toner accommodating portion enters (fig.7, #54b; para.0058) and a second exiting surface from which the light, entering from the second incident surface, exits toward the light-receiving portion (fig.4, end face of #54 facing #52), wherein the image forming apparatus has a cover member (fig.5, unlabeled cover corresponding to the location of #53 & #54 in fig.4), wherein a closest part of a lightguide portion (fig.4&5, straight part of #53 near #51) that is closest to a passage region where the laser light of the exposing portion passes (fig.1&4, where #6 shines on #2 near #41) is provided at a position closer to the passage region than any of parts of the other lightguide portion (fig.4, straight part of #53 is closer to that region than any other portion of #54), and is provided outside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.5, at least the partially uncovered upper portion of #53/#54 above the top surface of the cartridge) and at a position different from a position at which the second existing surface of the second lightguide portion is provided (fig.4&5, surface of #53 facing #51 and #54 facing #52 at a different position laterally), and wherein the cover member covers the first lightguide portion and the second lightguide portion, except for the closest part of the lightguide portion (fig.5, unlabeled cover does not cover front side end of #53). Regarding claim 10, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach a cartridge (fig.3) that is detachable from and attachable to an apparatus main body of an image forming apparatus (fig.1&2), the apparatus main body including an exposing portion (fig.1, #6) which emits laser light (para.0037) and a sensor which emits light (fig.4, #51&#52), the cartridge comprising: a photosensitive drum (fig.1, #2); a developing roller configured to supply toner to the photosensitive drum (fig.3&4, #41); a frame body (fig.3&4 #40) that has a toner accommodating portion in which the toner is accommodated (fig.3&4, space containing #44 & #45; para.0044); a first lightguide portion that is attached to the frame body and that guides light emitted by the sensor, from outside of the toner accommodating portion to inside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.4, #53 guides light from #51), the first lightguide portion including a first incident surface into the light emitted by the sensor enters (fig.4, end face of #53 facing #51) and a first exiting surface from which the light, entering from the first incident surface, exits toward the inside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.7, #53b; para.0058); a second lightguide portion that is attached to the frame body and that guides the light that has passed through the inside of the toner accommodating portion to the outside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.4, #54 guides light to #52), the second lightguide portion including a second incident surface into which the light passing through the inside of the toner accommodating portion enters (fig.7, #54b; para.0058) and a second exiting surface from which the light, entering from the second incident surface, exits toward the outside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.4, end face of #54 facing #52); and a cover member (fig.5, unlabeled cover corresponding to the location of #53 & #54 in fig.4), wherein a closest part of a lightguide portion (fig.4&5, straight part of #53 near #51) that is closest to a passage region, where the laser light emitted by the exposing portion for exposing the photosensitive drum passes (fig.1&4, where #6 shines on #2 near #41), is provided at a position closer to the passage region than any of parts of the other lightguide portion (fig.4, straight part of #53 is closer to that region than any other portion of #54), and is provided outside of the toner accommodating portion (fig.5, at least the partially uncovered upper portion of #53/#54 above the top surface of the cartridge) and at a position different from a position at which the second exiting surface of the second lightguide portion is provided (fig.4&5, surface of #53 facing #51 and #54 facing #52 at a different position laterally), and wherein the cover member covers the first lightguide portion and the second lightguide portion, except for the closest part of the lightguide portion (fig.5, unlabeled cover does not cover front side end of #53). However, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) discloses the input light from #51 entering #53 instead of #53 being the output light guide, as a result, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) fail to teach “wherein the cover member is configured so as not to cover the part that is closest” wherein the part is a part of the second lightguide. While Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach one particular orientation of the photodiode and photodetector #51 and #52, the reference does not teach any sort of criticality of this configuration. Additionally, there are only two possible orientations of the photodiode and photodetector. As a result, the Office believes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensing configuration of Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) by reversing the position of the two because it is a mere reversal of parts that would not materially affect the functioning of the apparatus and thus it would be an obvious modification, easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art. If such a reversal were made, the claim limitations would necessarily be met since upon reversal, #53 would then meet the definition of the “second” lightguide. Regarding claims 2 and 11, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus and a cartridge wherein the closest part extends along a scanning direction of the laser light (fig.1&4, scanning direction is along the axial direction of #2 which corresponds with the axial direction of #41 along which direction #53 and #54 are oriented). Regarding claims 3 and 12, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus and a cartridge wherein the closest part extends along a rotation axial line of the developing roller (fig.4, #53/#54 aligned with axial direction of #41). Regarding claims 4 and 13, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus and a cartridge wherein the first incident surface and the second exiting surface are each provided on a first end portion of the frame body in a direction of a rotation axial line of the developing roller (see fig.4&5). Regarding claims 5 and 14, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus and a cartridge wherein the first exiting surface and the second incident surface are disposed such that, between the first end portion of the frame body and a second end portion opposite from the first end portion in the direction of the rotation axial line (see fig.4&7), the first exiting surface is at a position closer to the first end portion than the second incident surface, and such that the first exiting surface and the second incident surface are aligned in the direction of the rotation axial line so as to face each other with a space in the direction of the rotation axial line (see fig.4, if the configuration of #54 and #53 were reversed). While Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach one particular orientation of the long light guide and the short light guide #53 and #54, the reference does not teach any sort of criticality of this configuration. Additionally, there are only two possible orientations of the light guides. As a result, the Office believes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensing configuration of Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) by swapping the length configuration of the two because it is a mere reversal of parts that would not materially affect the functioning of the apparatus and thus it would be an obvious modification, easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art. If such a reversal were made, the claim limitations would necessarily be met since upon reversal, a guide configured like a mirror image of #54 would then be in the position of #53 under the cover and meet the definition of the “second” lightguide. Regarding claims 6 and 15, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus and a cartridge wherein the first lightguide portion includes a first straight portion that extends along the rotation axial line (fig.4, straight advance portion near #51), wherein the second lightguide portion includes a second straight portion that extends along the rotation axial line (fig.4, straight advance portion near #52), and wherein the first straight portion and the second straight portion are aligned in a direction orthogonal to the rotation axial line (see fig.4). Regarding claims 7 and 16, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus and a cartridge wherein the second straight portion includes he closest part (fig.4&5, if #53 and #54 positions are reversed, this will be satisfied). Regarding claims 9 and 18, Sakaya et al. (US Pub.2015/0132018) teach an image forming apparatus and a cartridge wherein the second straight portion is closer to the photosensitive drum than the first straight portion (fig.1,3&4, upon reversal of #53 and #54, this limitation would be satisfied). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 17 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “the second straight advance portion is longer than the first straight advance portion” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 8. Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “the second straight advance portion is longer than the first straight advance portion” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 17. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see p.10, filed 29 April 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.102 has been withdrawn. Applicants’ arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Regarding the reference of Sakaya et al., the applicant argues that only the end portion of the first light guide is uncovered. In response to this, the Office restates that if a rearrangement of the parts by swapping the photodiode/photoreceiver positions were to occur, the light guide #53 would necessarily meet the claim definition of the ‘second lightguide’ and the uncovered limitation would be met. Thus, this argument is not persuasive. The applicants also allege that one of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the currently selective cover arrangement. On this point the Office respectfully disagrees since a mere change of locations of the photodetector/photodiode at the respective ends of the lightguides would de facto change which portion of the claim limitations would be met by which light guide and #53 would end up satisfying the definition of the “second lightguide” portion. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not need to arrive at selectively covering as it would just be a necessary outcome of the rearrangement. As such, the Office finds the applicants’ arguments not to be persuasive. 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/ 6/9/2026 /STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Apr 29, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
May 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12699352
PROCESS CARTRIDGE CHIP AND PROCESS CARTRIDGE
2y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12687814
IMAGE-FORMING APPARATUS INCLUDING MECHANISM FOR MAINTAINING OPENING AND CLOSING STATES OF SHUTTER OF FIXING DEVICE THROUGH URGING FORCE OF URGING MEMBER
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12681409
DEVELOPMENT DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING DEVICE THAT PREVENTS TONER LEAKAGE
1y 8m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12663741
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS THAT PERFORMS SHADING CORRECTION TO MAINTAIN PRINT POSITION ACCURACY
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12663738
DEVELOPER STORAGE DEVICE UTILIZING CONVEYANCE CONFIGURATION AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
83%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+1.4%)
2y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 809 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