Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/911,965

IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Oct 10, 2024
Examiner
BRASE, SANDRA L
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kyocera Document Solutions INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 8m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
938 granted / 1021 resolved
+23.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-4.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
1039
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.4%
-8.6% vs TC avg
§112
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1021 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 10/17/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-178678 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The title of the invention is 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. Claims 2 and 3 are 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. In claim 2, lines 4-5, “the toner generator” lacks proper antecedent basis. 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. Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/910584 (reference application) [published as US 2025/0123578]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/910584 contains or makes obvious the limitations contained in claim 1. Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/910584 contains all of the limitations contained in claim 1, even though it contains further limitations. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 7 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/910584 (reference application) [published as US 2025/0123578] in view of Ueda (JP2014-041191). Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/910584 contains limitations of claims 7 and 8, but does not contain the claimed storage portion, output portion and control portion. Ueda (…191) discloses an odor sensor (12), a storage portion (62) that stores information on the odor substance sensed by the odor sensor; and an output portion that outputs the information on the odor substance stored in the storage portion ([0059]) [see Applicant’s claim 7]. A control portion (61) identifies a type of toner storage container in use based on the information on the odor substance stored in the storage portion and changes an image forming condition in an image forming portion according to the identified type of the toner storage container ([0061]-[0064]) [see Applicant’s claim 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed storage portion, output portion and control portion, as disclosed by Ueda (…191), so that odor information sensed can be stored and output and then used by a control portion for control of conditions. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-6 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. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA BRASE whose telephone number is (571)272-2131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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. /SANDRA BRASE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 September 22, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 10, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596325
PROCESS CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578677
PROCESS CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578667
CHARGING ROLL FOR ELECTROPHOTOGRAPHIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572108
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572090
DEVELOPER CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (-4.7%)
1y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1021 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month