DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sunayama, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0286678.
The elements of the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 13-20 in the Office Action dated 10/31/25 are repeated herein in their entirety with the former elements of claim 2 incorporated into the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 18.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 5-8, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunayama, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0286678, in view of Hwang, U.S. Pat. No. 5,160,946, and admitted prior art.
The reasoning of the rejections of claims 1-4, 5-8, and 13-20 in the Office Action dated 10/31/25 are repeated herein in their entirety with the following modification:
Examiner had taken official notice that optical encoders that utilize reflective portions on rotating bodies is well known in the art. Because Applicants failed to “specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, [including] stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art”, Applicants have admitted the above noticed facts. MPEP 2144.03(C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunayama, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0286678, in view of Hwang, U.S. Pat. No. 5,160,946, and admitted prior art, and further in view of Hataguchi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2005/0116153.
The reasoning of the rejections of claim 9 in the Office Action dated 10/31/25 is repeated herein in its entirety without modification.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 1/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue:
A) Applicants may ignore the shifting burden in the Office Action dated 10/31/25 and defer dispute of the construction under 112(f);
B) because Examiner pointed out that everything is reflective to some degree, Examiner failed to point out anything specific that is reflective;
C) the encoder of Sunayama is not on any of the paddles, therefore it is not on the claimed “developer transmission component”;
D) nothing in Sunayama discloses supplying developer to the developer transmission channel based on the working state information;
E) Hwang fails to teach supplying developer to the developer transmission channel based on the working state information; and,
F) Hwang fails to teach the reflective component on the developer transmission component.
Applicants may indeed ignore the shifting burden with respect to the construction under 112(f). The Office Action dated 10/31/25 at page 5 indicated what Applicants had to do to overcome the construction under 112(f). Applicants have failed to do so, even though required by 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) to “distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action”. Thus, by ignoring the burden, Applicants have admitted the constructions under 112(f) as free of error. Any subsequently proffered analysis will be weighed against the evidence of record, which now includes an admission.
Examiner provided specificity with respect to the reflective element commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim is broad enough to read on everything so Examiner indicated that anything will suffice. Should the claims contain any structural limitations that reduce the scope of the claim, the possible elements that read on it will be thus constrained. Here, a structural limitation is that the reflective element is “arranged on the developer transmission component”. Every element of the developer transmission component is “arranged on the developer transmission component” and is also a “reflective element”. A functional limitation is attached to the claimed “state detection unit”, which is met by the encoder, which is also “arranged on the developer transmission component”, and which is also a reflective element.
The claims make no mention of “paddles” anywhere. The encoder of Sunayama is arranged on at least one of the recited elements of the claimed developer transmission component. The claimed developer transmission component is much broader than only paddles, as claim 3 makes clear.
Sunayama supplies the hopper, the claimed developer transmission channel, from the toner container whenever it is empty. As the hopper empties based on the working state information, it is refilled from the toner container. Would it were otherwise, the toner container would never replenish any developer, which it clearly does in Sunayama.
Hwang need not teach that which Sunayama already teaches. As stated above, the toner container of Sunayama refills the hopper. Sunayama also teaches placing the as modified reflective element in accordance with the only structural limitation, and also teaches the only functional limitation of the state detection unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights