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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 August 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, line 20, the phrase “the upstream-side transport portion being located” should be changed to - - the upstream-side transport portion is located - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700).
Regarding claim 7, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: an image carrier (fig.1&2, inside #32 and #100, respectively, drum not shown; para.0039); a developing device that is configured to apply a developer to the image carrier (fig.2&3, #400 via #420; para.0052); and a supplying device that is configured to supply a developer to the developing device, the supplying device having a developer flow path along which a developer that is configured to move toward the developing device passes (see fig.16, #TFP is comprised of tubes #450/#454 housing #430 and #250 housing #230, both are intersecting the vertical direction), the supplying device including a transport portion that is provided in the developer flow path and that is configured to transport a developer in the developer flow path to a downstream side (see fig.16, #430 inside tubes #450/#454 and #230 inside #250, downstream, generally following arrow #TFP), the supplying device being configured such that a gas that has flowed from the developing device to the supplying device passes along the developer flow path toward an upstream side in a transport direction of a developer (fig.16, #AFP travels from opening #452 along #430 in the upstream direction to #340), wherein, as the transport portion, an upstream-side transport portion (fig.16, #230) and a downstream-side transport portion (fig.16, #430) are provided, the upstream-side transport portion being located on the upstream side in the transport direction of a developer (see fig.16), the downstream-side transport portion being located on the downstream side of the upstream-side transport portion in the transport direction (see fig.16), a member that constitutes the upstream-side transport portion and a member that constitutes the downstream-side transport portion are different from each other (see fig.16), and the developer flow path includes an upstream-side developer flow path in which the upstream-side transport portion being located (fig.16, #250 housing #230) and a downstream-side developer flow path in which the downstream-side transport portion is located (fig.16, tubes #450/#454 housing #430), the upstream-side developer flow path and the downstream-side developer flow path being parallel to each other (see fig.16), wherein the upstream-side transport portion is configured to transport a developer by extruding a developer with an upstream-side extrusion portion that has a helical shape (fig.16, #236) and that is provided around an upstream-side rotary shaft extending along the upstream-side developer flow path (fig.16, around shaft of #230), and the downstream-side transport portion is configured to transport a developer by extruding a developer with a downstream-side extrusion portion that has a helical shape (fig.16, #436) and that is provided around a downstream-side rotary shaft extending along the downstream-side developer flow path (fig.16, around shaft of #430).
Regarding claim 8, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus wherein a gas flow path along which the gas that has passed along the developer flow path toward the upstream side in the transport direction of a developer passes is further provided (fig.16, #AFP from #450 to #10), the gas flow path being provided so as to branch from the developer flow path (fig.16, branches at #340), the gas flow path branching on the downstream side of the upstream-side transport portion in the transport direction of a developer (fig.16, #340 at downstream of #230) and on the upstream side of a downstream-side end portion in the transport direction of a developer (fig.16, #340 upstream of #432), the downstream-side end portion being an end portion of the downstream-side transport portion and being an end portion located on the downstream side in the transport direction of a developer (see fig.16).
Regarding claim 9, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus wherein, at a portion where the upstream-side transport portion is provided, an entirety of a cross-section of the developer flow path is filled with a developer, and wherein, on the downstream side of the portion, where the upstream-side transport portion is provided and where the entirety of the cross-section of the developer flow path is filled with a developer, in the transport direction of a developer, the gas flow path branches from the developer flow path (fig.16, since air enters #340, and entirety of #250 filled with developer and the branch happens just adjacent to it).
Regarding claim 13, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus wherein a gas flow path (fig.16, #AFP from #450 to #10) along which the gas that has passed along the developer flow path toward the upstream side in the transport direction of a developer passes is further provided, and wherein the gas flow path is connected, in an internal space of the supplying device, to a non-flow-path section that is a section that is not the developer flow path (fig.16, at #340), and the gas flow path extends through the non-flow-path section (see fig.16).
However, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) fail to teach the downstream-side transport portion having a developer transporting capacity larger than a developer transporting capacity of the upstream-side transport portion.
Regarding claim 7, Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.3) comprising: an image carrier (fig.3, #111); a developing device that is configured to apply a developer to the image carrier (fig.3, #100); and a supplying device that is configured to supply a developer to the developing device (fig.1&3, #30), the supplying device having a developer flow path along which a developer that is configured to move toward the developing device passes (fig.1, see path from #2-#100), the supplying device including a transport portion (fig.3, #5
) that is provided in the developer flow path and that is configured to transport a developer in the developer flow path to a downstream side (fig.1, direction of arrows), wherein, as the transport portion, an upstream-side transport portion (fig.1, #5) and a downstream-side transport portion (fig.1, #10) are provided, the upstream-side transport portion being located on the upstream side in the transport direction of a developer, the downstream-side transport portion being located on the downstream side of the upstream-side transport portion in the transport direction (see fig.1), a member that constitutes the upstream-side transport portion and a member that constitutes the downstream-side transport portion are different from each other (see fig.1, #5 and #10 separate with separate drives #6 and #11, respectively), and the developer flow path includes an upstream-side developer flow path in which the upstream-side transport portion being located (fig.1, #3 having #5) and a downstream-side developer flow path in which the downstream-side transport portion is located (fig.1, #8 having #10), the upstream-side developer flow path and the downstream-side developer flow path being parallel to each other (see fig.1), wherein the upstream-side transport portion is configured to transport a developer by extruding a developer with an upstream-side extrusion portion that has a helical shape and that is provided around an upstream-side rotary shaft extending along the upstream-side developer flow path (see fig.1, #5), and the downstream-side transport portion is configured to transport a developer by extruding a developer with a downstream-side extrusion portion that has a helical shape and that is provided around a downstream-side rotary shaft extending along the downstream-side developer flow path (see fig.1, #10), and wherein the downstream-side transport portion having a developer transporting capacity larger than a developer transporting capacity of the upstream-side transport portion (para.0051: if the screws and paths are substantially the same diameters and pitch, the increased drive time of the downstream-side transport portion will result in an increased transport capacity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the parallel screw transport path of Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) to have the greater capacity drive controls of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) in order to prevent toner stagnation in the downstream conveyance path (para.0053-0054).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wayman et al. (US Pub.2007/0217825).
Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) teach all of the limitations of claim 7, upon which claim 11 depends.
Regarding claim 11, Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the supplying device further including a fist driving source for rotationally driving the upstream-side transport portion (fig.1, #6) and a second driving source for rotationally driving the lower-side transport portion (fig.1, #11), wherein the upstream-side transport portion is configured to transport a developer by rotating about the upstream-side rotary shaft extending along the developer flow path, the downstream-side transport portion is configured to transport a developer by rotating about the downstream-side rotary shaft extending along the developer flow path (see fig.1, #5 and #10).
Additionally, Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) states a need for the second conveyance screw to be superior in terms of toner conveyance performance (para.0053-0054).
However, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) fail to explicitly teach a rotational speed of the downstream-side transport portion being higher than a rotational speed of the upstream-side transport portion to cause the downstream-side transport speed to be higher than the upstream-side transport speed.
Regarding claim 11, Wayman et al. (US Pub.2007/0217825) discloses the state of understanding regarding developer material moving capacity and discloses that if augers have the same physical configuration, the rate of material pushed will be the same at a same speed and that the rate of material pushed will change if one is driven at a different speed (para.0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the controls of Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) by using the speed controls on the second conveyor as suggested by Wayman et al. (US Pub.2007/0217825) because it is shown to be a results effective variable that would be easily incorporated into the two motor system of Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700). As a result, one of ordinary skill would readily think to try to change the speed on the second conveyor rather than extend the length of time and could easily arrive at the claimed configuration without undue experimentation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US Pub.2007/0081832).
Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) teach all of the limitations of claim 7, upon which claim 12 depends.
Additionally, Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) states a need for the second conveyance screw to be superior in terms of toner conveyance performance (para.0053-0054).
However, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) fail to teach achieving the objective by changing the pitch of the
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida et al. (US Pub.2007/0081832) discloses the state of understanding regarding developer material moving capacity and discloses that changing the pitch of an extrusion potion of a transport auger will change the movement capacity of the auger (para.0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the controls of Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700) by using a longer pitch for the second conveyor as suggested by Yoshida et al. (US Pub.2007/0081832) because it is shown to be a results effective variable that would be easily incorporated into the configuration of Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) in view of Nishitani (US Pub.2005/0002700). As a result, one of ordinary skill would readily think to try to change the movement capacity on the second conveyor by lengthening the pitch rather than extend the length of time and could easily arrive at the claimed configuration without undue experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is allowed for the inclusion of the subject matter of previous claim 4, indicated as allowable in the Office Action mailed on 27 May 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7-9 and 11-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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/
9/15/2026
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights