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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an angle formed by a rectilinear line L20 connecting a rotation center R2 of the second rotatable member and the point T and by a rectilinear line L21 connecting the rotation center R2 and the point Hu is wθ21” and “an angle formed by the rectilinear line L20 and a rectilinear line L22 connecting the rotation center R2 and the point Hd is wθ22” of claim 1 and the “an angle formed by a rectilinear line L10 connecting a rotation center R1 of the first rotatable member and the point T' and by a rectilinear line L12 connecting the rotation center R1 and the point Hu' is wθ11” and “an angle formed by the rectilinear line L10 and a rectilinear line L11 connecting the rotation center R1 and the point Hd' is wθ12” of claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note: each of the issues cited above are related to the lines and points being defined relative to the dual roller configuration depicted in, for example, fig.6. The lines and points appear to only be depicted on the graphs. A line defined as “line L20 connecting a rotation center R2 of the second rotatable member and the point T” must be shown connecting R2 and point T, for example.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Examples of reference characters at issue are L20, R2, T, L21, and Hu, etc.
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 1-8 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 1, lines 42 and 48, the claim contains the phrases “of the positions each”. It is unclear what is being meant by these phrases overall. Additionally, it is unclear what positions are being referred back to. Previously in the claim, the claim recites “a first developing position” (ln.5-6), “a second developing position” (ln.19), “a position where…” (ln.21), “a position where…” ( ln.24), and “a position where…” (ln.39). It is unclear which, if any, of these instances are being referred to by “of positions each”.
In lines 46 and 51, claim 1 states “the position on an upstream side…” and “the position on a downstream side…”. It is unclear what position each of these is referring back to or if an antecedent basis issue is present with this phrasing.
Lastly, the phrases “on an upstream side” and “on a downstream side” are unclear as to: to what item or position it is relative.
Claims 5-6 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 5, lines 7, 14, 21, and 28, the claim contains the phrases “of the positions each”. It is unclear what is being meant by these phrases overall. Additionally, it is unclear what positions are being referred back to. Previously in the claim, the claim recites “a first developing position” (cl.1, ln.5-6), “a second developing position” (cl.1, ln.19), “a position where…” (cl.1, ln.21), “a position where…” (cl.1, ln.24), and “a position where…” (cl.1, ln.39). It is unclear which, if any, of these instances are being referred to by “of positions each”.
In lines 11, 16, 25, and 32, claim 5 states “the position on an upstream side…” and “the position on a downstream side…”. It is unclear what position each of these is referring back to or if an antecedent basis issue is present with this phrasing.
Claims 7-8 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 7, lines 6 and 11, the claim contains the phrases “of the positions each”. It is unclear what is being meant by these phrases overall. Additionally, it is unclear what positions are being referred back to. Previously in the claim, the claim recites “a first developing position” (cl.1, ln.5-6), “a second developing position” (cl.1, ln.19), “a position where…” (cl.1, ln.21), “a position where…” (cl.1, ln.24), and “a position where…” (cl.1, ln.39). It is unclear which, if any, of these instances are being referred to by “of positions each”.
In lines 9 and 14, claim 7 states “the position on an upstream side…” and “the position on a downstream side…”. It is unclear what position each of these is referring back to or if an antecedent basis issue is present with this phrasing.
Lastly, In lines 6-10, positions are defined relative to the first rotatable member except for the point Hd’, which is defined relative to the rotational direction of the “second rotatable member”. This appears to be a typo and will be considered to be defined relative to the first rotatable member for examination on the merits.
Claim 9 is 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 9, lines 42 and 48, the claim contains the phrases “of the positions each”. It is unclear what is being meant by these phrases overall. Additionally, it is unclear what positions are being referred back to. Previously in the claim, the claim recites “a first developing position” (ln.5-6), “a second developing position” (ln.19), “a position where…” (ln.21), “a position where…” ( ln.24), and “a position where…” (ln.38). It is unclear which, if any, of these instances are being referred to by “of positions each”.
In lines 45 and 50, claim 9 states “the position on an upstream side…” and “the position on a downstream side…”. It is unclear what position each of these is referring back to or if an antecedent basis issue is present with this phrasing.
Lastly, the phrases “on an upstream side” and “on a downstream side” are unclear as to: to what item or position it is relative.
Claim 10 is 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 10, lines 42, 47, 59, 66, 73 and 80, the claim contains the phrases “of the positions each”. It is unclear what is being meant by these phrases overall. Additionally, it is unclear what positions are being referred back to. Previously in the claim, the claim recites “a first developing position” (ln.5-6), “a second developing position” (ln.19), “a position where…” (ln.21), “a position where…” ( ln.24), and “a position where…” (ln.38). It is unclear which, if any, of these instances are being referred to by “of positions each”.
In lines 45, 50, 63, 70, 77 and 84, claim 10 states “the position on an upstream side…” and “the position on a downstream side…”. It is unclear what position each of these is referring back to or if an antecedent basis issue is present with this phrasing.
Lastly, the phrases “on an upstream side” and “on a downstream side” are unclear as to: to what item or position it is relative.
Claim 10 is 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 10, lines 42, 47, 59, 66, 73 and 80, the claim contains the phrases “of the positions each”. It is unclear what is being meant by these phrases overall. Additionally, it is unclear what positions are being referred back to. Previously in the claim, the claim recites “a first developing position” (cl.10, ln.5-6), “a second developing position” (cl.10, ln.19), “a position where…” (cl.10, ln.21), “a position where…” (cl.10, ln.24), and “a position where…” (cl.10, ln.39). It is unclear which, if any, of these instances are being referred to by “of positions each”.
In lines 45, 50, 63, 70, 77, and 84, claim 10 states “the position on an upstream side…” and “the position on a downstream side…”. It is unclear what position each of these is referring back to or if an antecedent basis issue is present with this phrasing.
Allowable Subject Matter
While no art rejection has been presented based on what the examiner presumes to be the intended meaning of the claim language, the examiner, at this time cannot make a definite determination of patentability until an amended claim set is submitted as the claim amendments could potentially be substantiative.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohkubo et al. (US Pub.2025/0138451) does not constitute prior art, but is being cited as particularly relevant related art.
Doi et al. (US 5,545,840) disclose a dual development roller scenario and discusses various angles; however, the reference does not discuss the relevant claimed angles or area ratios.
Nishiyama (US Pub.2004/0076454) discloses a dual development roller scenario and discusses various angles; however, the reference does not discuss the relevant claimed angles or area ratios.
Yoshioka et al. (US pub.2013/0243493) disclose a dual development roller scenario and discusses various angles; however, the reference does not discuss the relevant claimed angles or area ratios.
Ariizumi et al. (US Pub.2024/0272565) does not constitute prior art, but is being cited as particularly relevant related art.
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/
12/19/2025
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852