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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-4, 8-9, and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,269,292. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are broader than the patent claims, but each feature of the present claims is present in the patent claims (the patent claims anticipate the instant claims) or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The instant claims and the patent claims correspond as follows:
Instant claims 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9: corresponds to patent claim 7, with patent claims 7 (which includes the limitations of patent claims 11 and 6 due to the dependency of the patent claim) including limitations which fall within the scope of the of the instant claims. For example instant claim 2 recites “a first photosensitive drum being supported by the frame”, and patent claim 7 recites a plurality of photosensitive drums (due to incorporation of claim 6) and the presence of a frame supporting “the plurality of the photosensitive drums”.
Instant claims 15-17 correspond to patent claim 8. Instead of being anticipated, instant claims 15-17 are obvious over the patent claim because while the patent claim (due to its dependency upon claims 1, 6, and 7 includes all of the limitations regarding the structure of the drum unit, the patent claim does not include a limitation reciting an image forming apparatus with a housing. Patent claim 1 however recites in the preamble that the drum unit is intended for attachment to an image forming apparatus, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for that image forming apparatus to have a housing to contain internal components.
Claims 2-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,438. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are broader than the patent claims such that each feature of the present claims is present in the patent claims.
The instant claims and the patent claims correspond as follows:
Instant claim 2 corresponds to patent claim 1.
Instant claims 3-4 corresponds to patent claim 7 (which incporporates the limitations of claims 1, 2, 3, and 4).
Instant claim 5 corresponds to patent claim 1.
Instant claim 6 corresponds to patent claim 2.
Instant claim 7 corresponds to patent claim 3.
Instant claim 8 corresponds to patent claim 4.
Instant claim 9 corresponds to patent claim 5.
Instant claim 10 corresponds to patent claim 6.
Instant claim 11 corresponds to patent claim 7.
Instant claim 12 corresponds to patent claim 8.
Instant claim 13 corresponds to patent claim 9.
Instant claim 14 corresponds to patent claim 10.
Instant claim 15 corresponds to patent claim 12.
Instant claim 16 corresponds to patent claim 13.
Instant claim 17 corresponds to patent claim 13.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi et al (US Patent 11,409,225 B2) in view of Sakamaki et al (US PGPub 2018/0341198).
With regard to claim 2: Kawaguchi discloses (note that each embodiment of Kawaguchi incorporates all of the features of the first embodiment shown in Figures 1-17) which comprises a drum unit (cartridge tray 3 which includes photosensitive drums 4) which includes a frame 30; a first photosensitive drum and a second photosensitive drum (two of 4Y, 4M, 4C, or 4K) supported by the frame (see column 8 lines 31-34), first and second rollers (developing rollers 6Y-K) which are configured to supply toner to the respective first and second photosensitive drums (see column 7 lines 29-31) and first and second containers which accommodate developer (the space within developing cartridges 8Y-K in which the developing material is kept).
Kawaguchi differs from the claimed configuration in that Kawaguchi does not explicitly disclose that the developing rollers are “magnetic rollers” as claimed, or that the containers which are incorporated into the developing cartridges contain carrier and toner.
The use of magnetic rollers as developing rollers and the use of magnetic carrier particles combined with toner particles (often termed a “two-component” development system) within the sump of a developing cartridge are both well known in the art. Sakamaki teaches a developing system which uses magnetic developing rollers (see ¶0044) and two-component toner and carrier mix and teaches and such an arrangement and further teaches that color image forming systems (Kawaguchi is a color apparatus) benefit from the use of two-component (toner plus carrier) development systems because two-component development systems are better able to consistently charge the toner, enabling better control of color tint (see ¶0002)
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have configured Kawaguchi with a magnetic brush developing roller and two-component toner/carrier developer mix as in Sakamaki in order to enable consistent control of toner charging and achieve better color image tint.
With regard to claims 5-7: Kawaguchi discloses the inclusion of a first connector 224 positioned inside of the housing and that the drum unit further comprises a second connector 219 which is configured to be electrically connected to the first connector in response to attachment of the drum unit to the housing. Kawaguchi also includes a relay board which is configured to have an undrawn but disclosed drum memory tag, with the relay board electrically sending the information stored thereupon to the image forming apparatus via the connector, see column 13 lines 1-14.
Claims 3-4, 8, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi and Sakamaki in further view of Murauchi et al (US Patent 8,219,007 B2).
With regard to claims 3-4, 8, 11, and 13: Kawaguchi does not disclose the inclusion of a toner inlet in the developing containers, inclusion of first and second toner sensors configured to detect an amount of toner accommodated in the first or second containers, respectively, via detection of magnetic permeability, with the inlets positioned at an axial end portion of the containers opposite to an axial end portion of the container in which the toner sensor is positioned.
Murauchi indicates the inclusion of a toner inlet in a developing container to allow for the supply of toner into the container during image formation. Murauchi further teaches the inclusion of magnetic permeability toner sensors and teaches that the output of such a sensor can used to control the addition of toner into the development container to maintain a particular toner concentration, see column 8 lines 18-26 and column 10 lines 7-14. Murauchi teaches that the toner sensor should be positioned at an opposite end of a container than the inlet, see Figure 6 in which the inlet position 28 is positioned at the left side of the figure and the toner density sensor position 31 is at the right side and column 9 line 61 through column 10 line 14 noting the sensor is positioned at a downstream end of the toner conveyance path. This arrangement means that the toner sensor is only exposed to toner and carrier which has been thoroughly mixed and agitated by the conveying augers.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the combination of Kawaguchi and Sakamaki in view of Murauchi with magnetic permeability-based toner sensors for each of the developing containers in order to allow for the addition of toner to the developing containers in order to ensure that concentration of toner remains consistent during printing operations, with toner inlets arranged at one axial end of the container and to position the toner sensor at the opposite axial end of the container in order to allow for new toner to be added while ensuring that the toner density sensor is only exposed to well mixed developer.
With regard to claim 14: Kawaguchi does not disclose the presence of a pair of augers in each container, each auger within a particular development chamber being configured to convey the toner and carrier to opposite ends of the respective container.
The use of augers to convey mixtures of toner and carrier from end to end of a development container is known in the art, with such conveyance being performed to both supply fresh toner to the developing roller and to charge the toner particles via triboelectric effects. Murauchi includes such augers 13 and 14 which cooperate to convey and stir the toner and carrier which make up the developer, see column 9 line 61 through column 10 line 6.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to have configured Kawaguchi to include two augers in each developing container (for a total of eight in the apparatus due to the presence of four developing containers) with each auger configured to convey the toner and carrier in opposite directions to different axial ends of the developing container as in Murauchi in order to convey and stir the toner and carrier in the development unit to charge the mixture for development.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi and Sakamaki in further view of Shimomura (US Patent 7,840,160 B2)
With regard to claim 15: Kawaguchi discloses the use of the drum unit as part of an image forming apparatus 1 (shown in Figures 1-2) which includes an image forming apparatus housing 2 to which the drum unit is configured to be attachable to and detachable from.
Kawaguchi does not disclose that the image forming apparatus includes what can be reasonably considered to be first and second toner cartridges accommodating toner therein. Apparent toner accommodating spaces are shown, see for example Figure 4 which includes a large open region above developing roller 6 in the cross section of 8M, but these spaces are not “toner cartridges” as would be understood in the art and are instead part of the developing cartridge 8.
It is however known to supply toner from a dedicated toner cartridge which is directly attached to a developing cartridge. This arrangement is shown in Shimomura, particularly in Figures 2 and 9. It can be readily appreciated that such an arrangement allows a user to replace the toner cartridge when the device is out of toner without having to replace the entire developing cartridge.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the system of Kawaguchi to include a toner cartridge attached to each development cartridge 8 in order to allow a user to replace the toner cartridge when the toner is consumed, reducing operating costs of the apparatus by reducing the frequency at which other more complex components such as the developing roller are replaced.
With regard to claim 16: Shimomura teaches incorporating a memory element 120 into each toner cartridge to store information about the toner and allow the image forming apparatus to determine whether or not the proper type of toner has been mounted, see column 1 lines 36-43 and column 7 lines 43-54.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the apparatus of the combination to incorporate memory units for each toner cartridge in order for the apparatus to determine whether or not the proper type of toner has been attached and alert the user when this is not true.
With regard to claim 17: Kawaguchi discloses the inclusion of a first connector 224 positioned inside of the housing and that the drum unit further comprises a second connector 219 which is configured to be electrically connected to the first connector in response to attachment of the drum unit to the housing. Kawaguchi also includes a relay board which is configured to receive data from attached developing units (using contacts 720) and an undrawn but disclosed drum memory tag, and relay that data to the image forming apparatus, see column 13 lines 1-14.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi, Sakamaki, and Shimomura in further view of Murauchi.
With regard to claim 18: Kawaguchi does not disclose the inclusion of a toner inlet in the developing containers, to which the first and second toner cartridges can be attached to replenish the toner in the corresponding containers.
Murauchi indicates the inclusion of a toner inlet in a developing container to allow for the supply of toner into the container during image formation, under the control of magnetic permeability toner sensors which control the addition of toner into the development container to maintain a particular toner concentration, see column 8 lines 18-26 and column 10 lines 7-14.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the combination of Kawaguchi, Sakamaki, and Shimomura in view of Murauchi with toner inlets and magnetic permeability-based toner sensors for each of the developing containers in order to allow for the addition of toner from the toner cartridges into the developing containers in order to ensure that concentration of toner remains consistent during printing operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852