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. The Office appreciates the Applicants’ bona fide attempt to amend the title; however, the replacement title is confusing since it states a singular developing device, but uses “developers different from each other in fluidity”. As such, further revision is requested.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because many of the edits from an “es” version of a word to an “ing” version of a word contain typos such as “accommodateing”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 9, line 9 appears as though it should end in a “:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 contains conditional language that “the lower the fluidity of the developer… the wider a movement path… is”. The essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language, renders the claim indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 contains conditional language that “the lower the fluidity of the developer… the larger a ceiling height… is”. The essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language, renders the claim indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 4 contains conditional language that “the lower the fluidity of the developer… the larger a width of the first connection portion is”. The essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language, renders the claim indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
Claim 5 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.
Additionally, claim 5 contains conditional language that “the lower the fluidity of the developer… the larger a diameter of the upstream discharge path is”. The essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language and the lack of base-configuration reference for the comparison, renders the claim indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
Claim 6 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.
Additionally, claim 6 contains conditional language that “the lower the fluidity of the developer… the smaller a transport force… is”. The essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language and the lack of base-configuration reference for the comparison, renders the claim indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
Claim 7 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.
Additionally, claim 7 contains conditional language that “the lower the fluidity of the developer… the smaller the number of turns of the upstream blade portion is”. The essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language and the lack of base-configuration reference for the comparison, renders the claim indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 ends with the phrasing “the lower a fluidity of the developer is, the more each of the plurality of developing devices is shaped to facilitate discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion with types of the components to be combined or a type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components differing depending on the fluidity of the developer to be accommodated in the accommodation portion”. It appears as though the applicants may be attempting to claim every conceivable modification of the first transport path configuration and/or discharge path configuration that could be created depending on which type of developer is intended to be used in the developing devices. It also could be read in a way that infers that the pathways and transport members may be electronically or mechanically changeable in response to a detected change in fluidity. If so, essential structure, means, and methods are lacking.
Due to the essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language, the claim is deemed to be indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
It is also unclear if the claim language is claiming that the fluidity of the developer is pre-selected or that the fluidity of the developer is changing.
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.
Additionally, claim 9 contains conditional language that “a plurality of types of first components… depending on the fluidity of the developer…”. The essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language (especially due to the first and second generic “components”) and the lack of base-configuration reference for the comparison, renders the claim indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. Ideally, as with claim 1, this should be tied to the second developer.
In claim 9, line 18, “a plurality of types of discharge transport members” is also unclear since only a discharge transport member is previously introduced and it is unclear if the plurality is intended to include the one introduced or some other configuration.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9 ends with the phrasing “a plurality of types of first components that are different from each other in width of the first connection portion or a diameter of the upstream discharge path, a plurality of types of second components that are different from each other in ceiling height of the one end of the first transport path connected to the first connection portion, and a plurality of types of discharge transport members that are different from each other in transport force generated by the upstream transport portion are combined with each other in a different manner depending on the fluidity of the developer to be accommodated in the accommodation portion”. The specification of the instant application does not appear to support all possible combinations that are encompassed by the claim language as it currently stands.
Claims 10-11 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.
Claim 10 ends with the phrasing “likelihood of discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion is determined by a selection of types of the components to be combined or a type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components”. It is unclear what kind of structure or means is encompassed by the “a selection of types of components” introduced in line 17-18. It appears as though the applicants may be attempting to claim every conceivable modification of the first transport path configuration and/or discharge path configuration that could be created depending on which type of developer is intended to be used in the developing devices. It also could be read in a way that infers that the pathways and transport members may be electronically or mechanically changeable in response to a detected change in developer discharge condition or desired discharge amount. If so, essential structure, means, and methods are lacking.
Due to the essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language, the claim is deemed to be indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims.
It is also unclear if the claim language is claiming that the discharge likelihood of the developer is pre-selected or that the discharge amount of the developer is changing.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 10 ends with the “likelihood of discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion is determined by a selection of types of the components to be combined or a type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components”. The specification of the instant application does not appear to support all possible combinations that are encompassed by the claim language as it currently stands.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 ends with the phrasing “is determined by the selection of types of the components to be combined or the type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components”. It appears as though the applicants may be attempting to claim every conceivable modification of the first transport path configuration and/or discharge path configuration that could be created depending on which type of developer is intended to be used in the developing devices. It also could be read in a way that infers that the pathways and transport members may be electronically or mechanically changeable in response to a likelihood of discharge of a developer. If so, essential structure, means, and methods are lacking.
Due to the essentially unlimited configuration nature of the current claim language, the claim is deemed to be indefinite since the Office would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims.
It is also unclear if the claim language is claiming that the likelihood of discharge of the developer is pre-selected and stored in advance or that the likelihood of discharge of the developer is changing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 11 ends with the phrasing “a ceiling height of the one end of the first transport path connected to the first connection portion, a width of the first connection portion, a diameter of the discharge path, or a transport force generated by the discharge transport member is changeable by changing the types of the components to be combined or the type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components”. The specification of the instant application does not appear to support all possible combinations that are encompassed by the claim language as it currently stands.
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931).
Regarding claim 10, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach a developing device (fig.8A, #34) comprising: 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 an 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), wherein the accommodation portion and the discharge path are formed by a plurality of components, and a likelihood of discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion is determined by a selection of types of the components to be combined or a type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components (see fig.4&11; width of #65 is different and pitch of #74c changes; para.0149-0150&0152&0228-0229).
Regarding claim 11, Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) teach a developing device wherein a ceiling height of the one end of the first transport path connected to the first connection portion, a width of the first connection portion, a diameter of the discharge path, or a transport force generated by the discharge transport member is determined by the selection of types of the components to be combined or the type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components (fig.4&11, see differences in #65 and #74c, for example).
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 10, Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931) teach a developing device (fig.2, #30) comprising: 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), wherein the accommodation portion and the discharge path are formed by a plurality of components (fig.5, see #74, walls of #62, #102, #104, #106A. walls of #108. #130 and shaft transitions of #90).
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) 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.
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 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 the lower the fluidity of the developer is, the more each of the plurality of developing devices is shaped to facilitate discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion with types of the components to be combined or a type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of 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 the lower the fluidity of the developer is, the more each of the plurality of developing devices is shaped to facilitate discharge of the developer to the outside of the accommodation portion with types of the components to be combined or a type of the discharge transport member to be combined with the plurality of components differing depending on the fluidity of the developer to be accommodated in the accommodation portion (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 each of the plurality of developing devices, the lower the fluidity of the developer to be accommodated in the accommodation portion is, the wider a movement path for the 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”.
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 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants’ amendments have overcome some portions of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, but not overcome other portions. The remaining rejections have been resubmitted with additional explanation.
With regards to the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US Pub.2009/0214266) in view of Yamada et al. (US Pub.2022/0373931), the applicants argue that the amended claim language “defines different developing devices of the same image forming apparatus as having different types of parts to adjust the discharge rates”. The Office respectfully disagrees, nothing about claim 10 indicates the use of different developing devices or the existence thereof. In fact, claim 10 discloses “A developing device” in the preamble. The final amended clause also does not set that forth. It merely states a result of a design choice. Additionally, it does not even positively recite a factual if-then limitation, just merely that a ‘likelihood’ of an outcome is determined by design choices. Since the applied prior art of record envisions a plurality of different configurations that have a ‘likelihood’ of discharging the developer (otherwise it would not perform as proposed), the rejection is maintained.
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 Kato does not teach using two different developing devices in the same apparatus, then merely state that the other cited references do not disclose, teach or imply the aforementioned. The Office respectfully disagrees. 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 two, taken in combination, do properly render the claimed subject matter obvious, and as such, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/
5/15/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights