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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a foam layer,” is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendment to the drawings filed February 19, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a developer container configured to, a supply rotator configured to and a layer thickness regulator configured to in claim 1.
Further, the Examiner would like to point out that is has been held that the phrase "configured to" has a narrower meaning than merely "capable of". See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375,1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the phrase "adapted to" construed narrowly to mean "configured to," as opposed to "capable of” or "having the capacity to," citing Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335,1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376,1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (construing "memory ... configured to" as "memory that must perform the recited function"); Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WF 3782840 (N.D. Cal. 2006) "A widely accepted dictionary definition of the word 'configure' means '[t]o design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific applications or uses.' American Heritage Dictionary 386 (4th ed. 2000)."
Thus, Applicant's specification supports a narrower meaning for "configured to" than "capable of" and makes clear that, at least in the independent claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation "configured to" means more than merely "capable of.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato US 2018/0373178 (A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Nishida teaches a developing device comprising:
a latent image bearer (21);
the developing device (FIG. 2);
a developer bearer (23) rotatable in a first direction to supply developer to a latent image bearer (21);
a developer container (20a) to contain the developer to be supplied to the developer bearer (23);
a supply rotator (25) to supply the developer in the developer container to the developer bearer (21) at a contact position at which the supply rotator contacts the developer bearer (FIG. 2);
a layer thickness regulator (24) to form a layer of the developer having a regulated thickness on the developer bearer (¶0035); and
the supply rotator (25) rotates in a second direction opposite the first direction of the developer bearer at the contact position (¶0036), and
the supply rotator (25) has a surface of a foam layer (25a) including a single foam cell (201) having a diameter smaller than 300 µm (¶0065).
Regarding claim 2, Sato teaches the developing device according to claim 1, wherein a portion of the developer bearer upstream from the contact position in the first direction is lower than the contact position (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sato teaches the developing device according to claim 1, wherein a surface movement velocity of the supply rotator (205 is lower than a surface movement velocity of the developer bearer (23) [hence creating the speed ratio, ¶0034-¶0036].
Regarding claim 4, Sato teaches the developing device according to claim 1, wherein the developer bearer bites into the supply rotator by 1 mm or greater at the contact position (¶0109).
Regarding claim 6, Sato teaches the developing device according to claim 1, wherein a negative charging bias applied to the developer bearer is higher than a negative charging bias applied to the latent image bearer to generate a potential difference between the developer bearer and the latent image bearer (via the developing bias, ¶0097).
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 JESSICA L ELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9793. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Jr. Lindsay can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA L ELEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights