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 1-7 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, last two lines are the same as the two lines immediately above them (lines 3 and 4 from the bottom are the same as lines 1 and 2 from the bottom) which renders the claims indefinite.
It is assumed applicant meant to claim that in the last two lines, the “developing unit” moves from the exposure position to the “second” separating position in response to the door opening. Thus, for examination purposes, the last two lines are interpreted as “wherein the developing unit moves from the developing position to the second separating position in response to the door opening”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1,5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogino et al. (U.S. 2015/0370219) in view of Okabe (U.S. 2009/0190953).
Ogino et al. teach an image forming apparatus 100 including a photoconductor 1 (1y, 1m, 1c, 1k) which are rotatable about a rotation axis; an exposure portion 3 (3y, 3m, 3c, 3k) having a light emitting portion to expose the photoconductor and form an electrostatic latent image; a developing unit 41 (41y, 41m, 41c, 41k) which develops the latent image with a toner material; a door 10 which opens and closes so as to access the interior of the image forming apparatus; and a separation mechanism 51 which slides upon opening the door and which separates both the exposure device 3 and developing unit 41 from a position adjacent photoconductor 1 to a position separated from the photoconductor. Specifically, when the door is opened and the separation mechanism 51 slides, projection 42 on the developer unit and projection 3a on the exposure portion moves along the inclined portions 51a, 51e so as to move the developing unit and the exposure portion to separated positions (applicant’s first and second separated positions). See Fig. 2,4,9; par. 27-30, par.52-64.
Regarding claim 5, a biasing member 3b urges the exposure device toward the photoconductive drum (Fig.2, par.52).
Regarding claim 6, with the door 10 in an open position, the interior of the apparatus is revealed, and the photoconductor 1 can be removed through the opening via detachment of the drum unit Py, Pm, Pc, Pk (see Fig.7).
Specifically, Ogino et al. teach all that is claimed except the exposure portion 3 includes a plurality of light emitting portions (claim 1) and preferably the exposure portion being an EL (organic electroluminescent) device. It is noted that Ogino et al. is silent as to the type of exposure device.
Okabe teach an image forming apparatus 1 using a LED unit 40 as an exposure device to form an electrostatic latent image on a photoconductor 53 (Fig.1, par.28-29). The exposure device can also be an electroluminescent device (par. 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an LED or EL device as the exposure device to form electrostatic latent images because this type of device is notoriously well known in the art and the use of light emitting diodes or and EL panels would be a compact optical system so as to conserve space within the image forming apparatus and additionally reduce power consumption that other exposure systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2-4, a stay that moves in a direction along the photoconductor rotational axis and which moves in response to the operation of the door, the exposure portion being moved in response to operation of the stay between the exposure position and the separation position is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato et al. teach moving both the exposure device and developing device in response to opening of a door. Katsumata and Zensai et al. teach moving the developing device in response to opening a door.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 and added new claims 2-7 which necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B BEATTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-2130. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7 to 3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephanie Bloss, can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-2130.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ROBERT B BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852