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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the lack portion is a hole” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the regulating member" in lines 11, 12, and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) in view of Furukawa (US Pub.2016/0139542).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) teach a developing device (fig.2, #3a) comprising: a housing which houses a developer (fig.2, #22); a replenishment port through which the developer is replenished to the housing (fig.4, #22g; para.0032); a spiral blade which stirs the developer in the housing while conveying the developer in a predetermined conveyance direction (fig.4&5, #44a in direction #Q); a discharge port through which the developer conveyed by the spiral blade is discharged (fig.5, #22h); a circular regulating member (fig.6, #55a) which is disposed between a downstream end portion of the spiral blade in the conveyance direction and the discharge port (fig.5, #55a downstream of end of #44a in direction #Q), and regulates a conveyance of the developer to the discharge port (para.0061); and a rotational shaft portion provided with the regulating member and the spiral blade (fig.5, #44b with #44a and #55a), in which a center of the rotational shaft portion coincides with a center of the regulating member (see fig.6), wherein the regulating member has a lack portion penetrating in the conveyance direction (fig.6, #60), the lack portion is a hole or slit formed along a radial direction of the rotational shaft portion (fig.6, #60 is a slit-shaped hole).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) teach a developing device wherein the lack portion is a slit (fig.6, #60) formed along a radial direction (fig.6, #60 has a dimensional component in the radial direction and the slit is generally formed along the radial direction in an arc from #59 to #59).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) teach a developing device further comprising: a reverse spiral blade provided between the regulating member and the discharge port on the rotational shaft portion (fig.5, #52 on #44b between #55a and #22h), spirally formed in a winding direction opposite to that of the spiral blade (see fig.5), and conveying the developer in a direction opposite to the conveyance direction (para.0059), a part of the developer conveyed along the conveyance direction and passing over the regulating member is discharged from the discharge port (para.0061-0062), while the developer passing through the lack portion is pushed back by the reverse spiral blade and is not conveyed to the discharge port (para.0053-0054&0059-0064), and the smaller an amount of the developer passing through the lack portion, the larger a discharge amount of the excessive developer discharged through the discharge port (para.0064--0066).
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a photosensitive drum on which an electrostatic latent image is formed (fig.1&2, #1a); and the developing device according to claim 1 (fig.2-5, #3a, see rejection above), which supplies the developer to the photosensitive drum (see fig.2; para.0024).
However, Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) fail to show details of the position of the end of #44a and the openings #60 in #55a; thus Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) fail to positively teach the lack portion is separated from the downstream end portion of the spiral blade in a circumferential direction of the rotational shaft portion.
Regarding claim 2, Furukawa (US Pub.2016/0139542) teach a developing device (fig.2, #8) comprising: a housing which houses a developer (fig.2, #81); a replenishment port through which the developer is replenished to the housing (fig.3, #86); a spiral blade which stirs the developer in the housing while conveying the developer in a predetermined conveyance direction (fig.3&4, #85); and a regulating member (fig.4, combination of #93^A), wherein the regulating member has a lack portion penetrating in the conveyance direction (fig.4, #94A); wherein, the lack portion is circumferentially separated from a downstream end portion of the spiral blade in the conveyance direction (fig.4, #94A is shifted from connection point between #93 and #92; fig.5, shows variations on the configuration and in all instances #93 is connected on the solid portion of #92 and spaced circumferentially from #94A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the regulation portion-spiral blade interface of Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) by having the blade end on the solid portions of the regulation portion and be spaced circumferentially from the lack portions as in Furukawa (US Pub.2016/0139542) because it is a configuration known in the art and would be easily arrived at without undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill at the time of filing. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would readily realize that ending the spiral blade of Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) at any other portions of #55a than at #59 would result in a blocking and change of function of the portions #60.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) in view of Furukawa (US Pub.2016/0139542) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shigeta et al. (US Pub.2004/0265009).
Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) in view of Furukawa (US Pub.2016/0139542) teach all of the limitations of claim 3, upon which claim 7 depends.
However, Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) in view of Furukawa (US Pub.2016/0139542) fail to teach forming the lack portion by attaching two semicircular plates facing each other to a rotational shaft.
Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732) disclose a plate configured with two symmetrical pass-throughs in a particular configuration for the purpose of keeping the amount of toner transferred to the discharge portion constant regardless of change in rotation speed of the spiral blade (para.0061).
Furukawa (US Pub.2016/0139542) discloses having a radial slit to relieve pressure of a toner build up on a spiral blade (para.0061) and allows for other forms and configurations of the pressure relief opening (para.0064-0066).
Shigeta et al. (US Pub.2004/0265009) teach a stirring member (fig.6-11&15) for use in a developing device (ex. fig.3) wherein the state of the known art of the stirring member configurations is show to include slit openings (fig.9) and semicircular plates attached to a shaft opposite to one another (fig.15).
Based on the teachings of all three references, and since the opposing semicircular plates is a known possible configuration in the toner stirring art, the Office contends that one of ordinary skill in the art might think to try the configuration in claim 7 as a way to adjust the delivery and blocking performance of the regulating portion of Sasaki et al. (US Pub.2016/0370732). The configuration may be found to be either more cost effective to manufacture or easier to adjust the toner passage/blocking amount and thus could be arrived at after routine experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “the longer a distance between the lack portion and the downstream end portion of the spiral blade along the circumferential direction of the rotational shaft portion, the smaller an amount of the developer passing through the lack portion” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses what they believe the benefits of the configuration of their invention are. The applicant then also properly sets forth the configuration of Sasaki and that the flow amount of the developer is adjusted by changing the outer rim radial width of the first annular portion. The applicant also alleges that the configuration of Sasaki ‘complicates the preparation of the second stirring screw having the first annular portion’. This statement is not supported by the reference and is a mere allegation. Furthermore, since the ‘preparation’ of the screw in Sasaki and the preparation of the screw in instant application both appear to be forming the regulating member on a portion of the shaft, it is distinctly unclear how the preparation of the one would be more complicated than the preparation of the other. Additionally, since a preparation means or method is not included in the claim language, this distinction is both unconvincing and moot.
As such, the Applicant’s arguments are found to not be persuasive.
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/
4/6/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights