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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 August 2026 has been entered.
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:
“first connection portion” in claim 1;
“second connection portion” in claim 1;
“first transport member” in claim 1;
“second transport member” in claim 1;
“discharge transport member” in claim 1;
“upstream transport portion” in claim 5;
“downstream transport portion” in claim 5;
“upstream transport portion” in claim 6;
“downstream transport portion” in claim 6;
“components” in claim 8;
“upstream transport portion” in claim 9;
“downstream transport portion” in claim 9;
“plurality of types of first components” in claim 9;
“plurality of types of second components” in claim 9;
“first connection portion” in claim 10;
“second connection portion” in claim 10;
“first transport member” in claim 10;
“second transport member” in claim 10;
“discharge transport member” in claim 10;
“plurality of components” in claim 10.
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 § 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 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) and in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931).
Regarding claim 1, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: an image holding body (fig.8A, #12); and a developing device (fig.8A, #34) that respectively develop images on the image holding body by using developer, wherein the developing device includes an accommodation portion that accommodates a developer (fig.8A, #70/#68) and that includes a first transport path extending in one direction (fig.8A, #70a, into the page), a second transport path disposed below the first transport path and extending in the one direction (fig.8A, #68, into the page and below #70), a first connection portion connecting one end of the first transport path and one end of the second transport path to each other (fig.2, #69), and a second connection portion connecting the other end of the first transport path and the other end of the second transport path to each other (fig.2, #61), a first transport member that is disposed in the first transport path and that transports the developer from one end to the other end in the one direction (fig.2&8A, #74 in #70 from #69 to #61/#75), a second transport member that is disposed in the second transport path and that transports the developer from the other end to the one end in the one direction (fig.2&8A, #72 in #68 from #61 to #69), a discharge path that extends in the one direction from the one end of the first transport path and through which the developer flowing out from the first transport path is discharged to an outside of the accommodation portion (fig.2 from #75-#92, #79 extending from an end of #70), and a discharge transport member that is disposed in the discharge path and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path (fig.4&11, #74b), and the lower a fluidity of the developer to be accommodated in the accommodation portion is, the more the discharge path, the discharge transport member, the first transport path of the accommodation portion, or the first connection portion arranged in an inner of the developing device is shaped to facilitate discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion (see fig.4&11; width of #65 is different and pitch of #74c changes; para.0149-0150&0152&0228-0229).
Regarding claim 5, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes an upstream transport portion that continues from one end of the first transport member and that transports a portion of the developer, which is flowing out from the first transport path, to return to the first transport path (fig.4&11, #77/#77A), and a downstream transport portion that continues from one end of the upstream transport portion and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the outside of the accommodation portion (fig.4&11, #74b), the discharge path includes an upstream discharge path that continues from the one end of the first transport path and in which the upstream transport portion is disposed (fig.4&11, portion of #70 in which #77 exists), and a downstream discharge path that continues from one end of the upstream discharge path and in which the downstream transport portion is disposed (fig.4&11, #79).
Regarding claim 8, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach an image forming apparatus wherein, in each of the plurality of developing devices, the accommodation portion and the discharge path are formed by a plurality of components, and components of developing devices are shaped to facilitate discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion, the components differing depending on the fluidity of the developer to be accommodated in the accommodation portion (see fig.4&11; width of #65 is different and pitch of #74c changes; para.0149-0150&0152&0228-0229).
Regarding claim 9, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes an upstream transport portion that continues from one end of the first transport member and that transports a portion of the developer flowing out from the first transport path, to return to the first transport path (fig.4&11, #77/#77A), and a downstream transport portion that continues from one end of the upstream transport portion and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the outside of the accommodation portion (fig.4&11, #74b), the discharge path includes an upstream discharge path that continues from the one end of the first transport path and in which the upstream transport portion is disposed (fig.4&11, portion of #70 in which #77 exists), and a downstream discharge path that continues from one end of the upstream discharge path and in which the downstream transport portion is disposed (fig.4&11, #79).
However, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) merely teach one image holding body and associated developing device and fail to teach a plurality of image holding bodies; and a plurality of developing devices that respectively develop images on the image holding bodies by using developers that are different from each other in fluidity.
Regarding claim 1, Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) teaches an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a plurality of image holding bodies (fig.1, #1a-#1d); and a plurality of developing devices that respectively develop images on the image holding bodies (fig.1, #4a-#4d; fig.2, #4) by using developers that are different from each other in fluidity (para.0161-0162: at least black is different than the colored toner in fluidity), wherein, among the plurality of developing devices, a first developing device (fig.1, #4a-c) configured for a first developer with a first fluidity (para.0161) and a second developing device (fig.1, #4d) configured for a second developer (para.0163-0164) with a second fluidity lower than the first fluidity are provided (para.0161), and wherein at least one of a discharge path, a discharge transport member, a first transport path of an accommodation portion, or a first connection portion of the second developing device is shaped to facilitate a greater discharge of the second developer as compared to the first developing device (para.0163).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) teaches an image forming apparatus wherein, in each of the plurality of developing devices, the accommodation portion and the discharge path are formed by a plurality of components, and components of the second developing device are shaped to facilitate a greater discharge of the second developer to the outside of the accommodation portion as compared to the first developing device (para.0161-0163&0165-0167).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image forming apparatus of Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) by configuring it to be a multi-color apparatus as in Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) because it is common in the art to configure an apparatus to form either a single or multicolor image to improve the user options. Upon combination, it would be obvious to change or alter physical configurations of the developing devices to effectively discharge the individual developers when the fluidity is different between colors due to changes in toner or carrier particle size or other compositional traits what will affect the fluidity (para.0161-0163&0165-0167) in order to stabilize image density (para.0165)
However, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) fail to teach a discharge path that extends in the one direction from the one end of the first transport path.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) teach an image forming apparatus comprising: a plurality of image holding bodies; and a plurality of developing devices that respectively develop images on the image holding bodies by using developers that are different from each other in fluidity, wherein each of the developing devices (fig.2, #30) includes an accommodation portion that accommodates a developer (fig.2, #66) and that includes a first transport path extending in one direction (fig.2&5, #62), a second transport path disposed below the first transport path and extending in the one direction (fig.2&5, #64, below #62), a first connection portion connecting one end of the first transport path and one end of the second transport path to each other (fig.3&5, #74), and a second connection portion connecting the other end of the first transport path and the other end of the second transport path to each other (fig.3, #72), a first transport member that is disposed in the first transport path and that transports the developer from one end to the other end in the one direction (fig.2&5, #96 in #62 from #74 to the far left), a second transport member that is disposed in the second transport path and that transports the developer from the other end to the one end in the one direction (fig.2&5, #98 in #64 from far left to #74), a discharge path that extends in the one direction from the one end of the first transport path and through which the developer flowing out from the first transport path is discharged to an outside of the accommodation portion (fig.5, from #74->#130, #108 extending from the one end of #62), and a discharge transport member that is disposed in the discharge path and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path (fig.5, #102 & #106A), and wherein the accommodation portion and the discharge path are formed such that the discharge path, the discharge transport member, the first transport path of the accommodation portion, or the first connection portion is shaped to facilitate discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion (fig.5, see #74, walls of #62, #102, #104, #106A. walls of #108. #130 and shaft transitions of #90).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes an upstream transport portion that continues from one end of the first transport member and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the first transport path (fig.5, #104), and a downstream transport portion that continues from one end of the upstream transport portion and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the outside of the accommodation portion (fig.5, #106A), the discharge path includes an upstream discharge path that continues from the one end of the first transport path and in which the upstream transport portion is disposed (fig.5, portion of #62 housing #102/#104), and a downstream discharge path that continues from one end of the upstream discharge path and in which the downstream transport portion is disposed (fig.5, #108).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes an upstream transport portion that continues from one end of the first transport member and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the first transport path (fig.5, #104), and a downstream transport portion that continues from one end of the upstream transport portion and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the outside of the accommodation portion (fig.5, #106A), the discharge path includes an upstream discharge path that continues from the one end of the first transport path and in which the upstream transport portion is disposed (fig.5, portion of #62 housing #102/#104), and a downstream discharge path that continues from one end of the upstream discharge path and in which the downstream transport portion is disposed (fig.5, #108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the configuration of the developing device of Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) by using an upstream developer discharge path as in Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) because it is a known variation in the art and has substantially the same function in substantially the same way to reach substantially the same result.
Regarding claim 2, upon combination of at least Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001), the following limitations would be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation because these items are disclosed as results effective variables at least in Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) (para.150,0152,&0228-0226) and Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) (para.0163&0165-0167): “in the second developing device, a movement path for the second developer to be discharged to the outside of the accommodation portion through the first connection portion, the one end of the first transport path, and the discharge path is wider as compared to the first developing device”.
Regarding claim 3, upon combination of at least Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001), the limitations would be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation because the ceiling height would fall under the results effective variable of ‘modifying the developer container’ as in Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) (para.0167).
Regarding claim 4, upon combination of at least Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001), the following limitations would be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation because the connection portion width is disclosed as one of the results effective variables at least in Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) (para.150,0152,&0228-0226) and Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) (para.0163&0165-0167).
Regarding claim 5, upon combination of at least Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001), the limitations would be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation because the diameter of the upstream discharge path would fall under the results effective variable of ‘modifying the developer container’ as in Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) (para.0167).
Regarding claim 9, upon combination of at least Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) the final limitations would be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation because these items are disclosed as results effective variables at least in Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) (para.150,0152,&0228-0226) and Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) (para.0163&0165-0167).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) and in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okuno et al. (US 5,963,766).
Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) and in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 6 and 7 depend.
Regarding claim 6, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes an upstream transport portion that continues from one end of the first transport member and that transports a portion of the developer, which is flowing out from the first transport path, to return to the first transport path (fig.4&11, #77/#77A), and a downstream transport portion that continues from one end of the upstream transport portion and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the outside of the accommodation portion (fig.4&11, #74b).
Regarding claim 6, Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes an upstream transport portion that continues from one end of the first transport member and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the first transport path (fig.5, #104), and a downstream transport portion that continues from one end of the upstream transport portion and that transports the developer flowing out from the first transport path toward the outside of the accommodation portion (fig.5, #106A).
Regarding claim 7, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes a rotary shaft that extends in the one direction (fig.4&11, #74), an upstream blade portion that is provided in a spiral shape around the rotary shaft and that constitutes the upstream transport portion (fig.4&11, #77/#77A; para.0096), and a downstream blade portion that is provided in a spiral shape around the rotary shaft and that constitutes the downstream transport portion (fig.4&11, #74b; para.0095).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the discharge transport member includes a rotary shaft that extends in the one direction (fig.5: #90), an upstream blade portion that is provided in a spiral shape around the rotary shaft and that constitutes the upstream transport portion (fig.5, #104; para.0032&0034), and a downstream blade portion that is provided in a spiral shape around the rotary shaft and that constitutes the downstream transport portion, and in each of the plurality of developing devices (fig.5, #106A; para.0032&0049).
However, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) and in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) do not explicitly discuss changing the transport force and further the number of turns of the blade portion.
Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) further teach a relationship between blade pitch and fluidity of toner (para.0027, 0150&0152).
Okuno et al. (US 5,963,766) teach a relationship between conveying force and pitch (col.8, ln.34-39; fig.3) and also the relationship between the number of turns and conveying force (col.10, ln.1-10; fig.5) and demonstrates that the two are variations to achieve the same effect.
Based on the teachings of the combined references, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) and in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) and further in view of Okuno et al. (US 5,963,766) the final limitations of claims 6 and 7 would be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation because these items are disclosed as results effective variables at least in Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) (para.150,0152,&0228-0226) and Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) (para.0163&0165-0167) and Okuno et al. (US 5,963,766) (col.8, ln. ln.34-39; fig.3; col.10, ln.1-10; fig.5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-5, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) and in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931), in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Particularly, the Applicants argue that Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) teaches a technical solution of changing the outlet sizing using an external adjusting member. Specifically, Sakamaki (US Pub.2005/0214001) is cited to disclose that using multiple colors for forming an image is known and within that scope, using toners of different fluidity in the same apparatus are known. The reference is not relied upon as a teaching for any particular means for modification or teaching anything other than that a multicolor printer is known and that frequently, at least one color of developer may have a different fluidity than the others. This is not a teaching of structure but of the commonly known state of the art. The reference of Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) is the reference being relied upon to disclose the various known fluidity-based modifications that can be used. As such, the Office does not find these arguments 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/
9/18/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights