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. While the applicants are thanked for their bona fide attempt at amendment, the new title is still generic and not particular to the invention.
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 7-12 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 7 introduces “an upstream-side transport portion” (USTP for discussion herein) and “a downstream-side transport portion” (DSTP). It is unclear from the wording of claim 7 and the specification if the USTP and the DSTP are portions of one contiguous shaft/screw or entirely separate shafts/screws. The dependent claims and specification do not particularly clarify this issue as it appears in some sections to mean the former and in other to mean the latter. It is also unclear of the shafts are axially aligned or in parallel sections of a path. Only “the developer flow path” is set forth and as such, the claimed shafts appear to be set forth as within the same chamber and coaxial; however, this type of configuration is not disclosed in the specification. The dependent claims do not clarify this point as they appear to reference entirely different sections of the invention. As a result, the Office is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claims 10-12 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: by what structure, method or means the transport speeds are controlled differently. This issue is exacerbated by the lack of clarity in claim 7 which makes it unclear if the two portions are on a shared shaft or different shafts.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
Claim 11 sets forth that “each of the upstream-side transport portion and the downstream-side transport portion transports a developer by rotating about a rotary shaft” and then recites differing rotational speeds. It is unclear, especially because of the uncertainty with previous claims, how the two can rotate at different speeds. Some manner of structural relationship or means to allow this claim to be clear appears to be omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021).
Regarding claim 1, 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 that is a tube extending in a direction intersecting a vertical direction and 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 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 movement direction of a developer (see fig.16&5, #AFP direction along the axis of #430/#454 before heading in the vertical direction), wherein the vertical direction is a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the supplying device (fig.16, axis of #430/#454 intersecting with direction along line from indicators #410 to #10).
Regarding claim 2, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus wherein a transport portion that is configured to transport a developer to a downstream side by rotating about a rotary shaft provided along the developer flow path is provided in the developer flow path (fig.16, #430), and wherein, in a cross-section of the developer flow path, an area of an upper side portion of an inner side region that is a region on an inner side of an inner peripheral surface of the developer flow path is larger than an area of a lower side portion of the inner side region (fig.16, in the area of #454, the upper portion is larger than the lower portion projecting toward indicator #480), the upper side portion being a portion located on an upper side of a horizontal line extending along the cross-section and passing through a rotation center of the transport portion, the lower side portion being a portion located on a lower side of the horizontal line (see fig.16).
Regarding claim 3, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus wherein, in the cross-section of the developer flow path, part of a portion of the inner peripheral surface of the developer flow path, the portion being located on the upper side of the horizontal line, protrudes in a direction away from the rotation center (fig.16, see portion of upper part of #454 projecting up toward indicator #480).
Regarding claim 5, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus wherein a transport portion that is configured to transport a developer to a downstream side by rotating about a rotary shaft (fig.16, #434) provided along the developer flow path is provided in the developer flow path (fig.5, inside #502; fig.16, #430), and wherein a first gap and a second gap that differs from the first gap in terms of position in a rotation direction of the transport portion and that is larger than the first gap are provided between an outer peripheral portion of the transport portion and an inner peripheral surface of the developer flow path (fig.5, see gap from conveyor to #456 vs. gap from conveyor to lower 2/3s of the path wall).
Regarding claim 6, Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the developer flow path is provided so as to extend in a direction intersecting the vertical direction (fig.16, #TFP extends horizontally along #450), and wherein the second gap that is a larger gap is located above a rotation center of the transport portion, and the first gap that is a smaller gap is located below the rotation center of the transport portion (fig.5&16, gap at #454 projecting toward #456 and area near #480 is located above, lower gap is below #434).
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita et al. (US Pub.2020/0166872) in view of Ariizumi et al. (US Pub.2018/0335722).
Regarding claim 7, Kita et al. (US Pub.2020/0166872) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: an image carrier (fig.1, #2); a developing device that is configured to apply a developer to the image carrier (fig.1, #4); and a supplying device that is configured to supply a developer to the developing device (fig.1, #7), the supplying device having a developer flow path (fig.2&3, #7 having #44 in #8) along which a developer that is configured to move toward the developing device passes (fig.8, arrows along #43), 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.3&8, #43a1 transporting along #B1), 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.8, see #E1), wherein, as the transport portion, an upstream-side transport portion and a downstream-side transport portion are provided (fig.3, #43a1 and #43a2, respectively), the upstream-side transport portion being located on the upstream side in the transport direction of a developer (fig.3, see location of #43a1 relative to #B1 direction), 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.3, #43a1; para.0039) and that is provided around an upstream-side rotary shaft extending along the developer flow path (fig.3&8, #43b on the upstream side of #44a), 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.3, #43a2; para.0039) and that is provided around a downstream-side rotary shaft extending along the developer flow path (fig.3&8, around downstream portion of #43b), and wherein the downstream-side transport portion being located on the downstream side of the upstream-side transport portion in the transport direction (fig.3, see location of #43a2 relative to #B1 direction).
Regarding claim 8, Kita et al. (US Pub.2020/0166872) 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.8, see path of #E1), the gas flow path being provided so as to branch from the developer flow path (fig.8, through #45d), the gas flow path branching on the downstream side of the upstream-side transport portion in the transport direction of a developer and on the upstream side of a downstream-side end portion in the transport direction of a developer (fig.8, see location of #45d relative to #43a1 and #43a2, see also fig.3), 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 (fig.8, see structure relative to fig.3 direction #B1).
Regarding claim 9, Kita et al. (US Pub.2020/0166872) 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 (fig.8, near #45d0 some developer may flow up and out as well indicating full, additionally upstream of #44b the developer fills the path), 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.8, at #45d, #E1 branches from large arrow and main developer flow path along #43).
However, Kita et al. (US Pub.2020/0166872) is silent as to the transporting capacity of the upstream and downstream-side transport portions.
Regarding claim 7, Ariizumi et al. (US Pub.2018/0335722) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) with a transport portion in a developer flow path (fig.3, #14 in #12) wherein, as the transport portion, an upstream-side transport portion (fig.3&4, #14b) and a downstream-side transport portion (fig.3&4, #14c) 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.3, relative to direction #R5), the downstream-side transport portion having a developer transporting capacity larger than a developer transporting capacity of the upstream-side transport portion (para.0043&0045 and see relation in fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the unexplained downstream-side transport portion of Kita et al. (US Pub.2020/0166872) by using the relational configuration that has a larger transport capacity as in Ariizumi et al. (US Pub.2018/0335722) in order to enhance and maintain the flow of developer through the port (para.0047).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 may 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.
Currently no art is presented due to the language concerning speed differences; however, no distinctly allowable subject matter can be pointed to with the current state of the claim language.
Claim 4 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 “in the developer flow path, a developer is transported in a state of being gathered on one side in a width direction of the developer flow path, the width direction being a direction that is orthogonal to an extension direction of the developer flow path and that is parallel to a horizontal direction, and wherein, in the cross-section of the developer flow path, part of the inner peripheral surface of the developer flow path, the part being located on another side in the width direction of the developer flow path and being located on the upper side of the horizontal line, protrudes in a direction away from the rotation center” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 4.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On p.8, the Applicants state that claims 4 and 7 are amended to obviate the rejection. Regarding claim 4, the Applicants are correct and the rejection is withdrawn. Regarding claim 7, the amendments merely describe the structure of the USTP and DSTP; namely, specifying a helical shape on a shaft extending along the flow path. The amendment still does not definitively clarify if these portions are one contiguous shaft/screw or entirely separate shafts/screws. As such, the rejection is maintained. Additionally, the rejections of claims 10-12 and 11 are neither addressed in the arguments nor appropriately amended. With regards to claim 11, the amendment, while useful for clarity, does not help clarify how the two can rotate at different speeds, some manner of structural relationship or means to allow this claim to be clear appears to be omitted (such as different gearing, or motors or etc).
Regarding claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C.102, the applicants argue that they disagree with the arrow AFP being equivalent to “a gas that has flowed from the developing device to the supplying device passes along the developer flow path”. The applicants assert that the AFP is disclosed as following a developer path that is conveyed in a vertical direction. The Office respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in fig.16 and fig.5 of Leemhuis et al. (US Pub.2015/0220021), while a portion of the path TFP is vertical, the overwhelming delivery vector of TFP is horizontal, especially in path #454. While fig.16 appears to show AFP as having a generally vertical path, the specification discloses #454 as being an enclosed path (para.0053) and #502 and #402 as being solid structures such as a shutter and a housing, respectively (para.0053&0052) through which AFP would not be able to travel. Further, fig.5 clearly shows AFP traversing the axial direction of #502 before turning upward. Further, the applicants’ drawing fig.17 also shows the developer delivery path as having both vertical and horizontal components. As such, the Office does not find these arguments to be persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C.103, the Applicants merely assert that the references do not teach the newly amended claim language. The Office respectfully disagrees as can be seen in the revised rejection above. Additionally, the applicants assert that the amendments to claim 7 disclose two entirely different shafts/screws. While the Office understands the distinction the applicants are trying to make, the applicants are reading more into the claim language than it currently states. The claim language requires: an “upstream-side extrusion portion that has a helical shape” and a “downstream-side extrusion portion that has a helical shape” (these are clearly labeled in the rejection above); and an “upstream-side rotary shaft” and “downstream-side rotary shaft”. The latter limitations can be read on an upstream-side shaft as an independent shaft or as the upstream-side shaft as the upstream portion of the shaft. The claim language is not limiting to only one interpretation. The rejection has been maintained with slight changes to address the amendments.
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/
5/20/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights