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 were received on 14 July 2026. New Fig.9 is acceptable.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a second sheet that is fixed to the cover, at least at a maximum peak position of magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction” of claim 1,
“second sheet is arranged … in a region from an upstream-side half maximum position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction … to a downstream-side half maximum position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction” of claim 2,
“the free end of the second sheet is disposed on a downstream of the maximum peak position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in the normal direction” of claim 3,
“the free end of the second sheet is disposed on a downstream of a downstream-side half maximum position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction” of claim 4.
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 § 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) in view of Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270).
Regarding claim 1, Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) teach a development device (fig.1) comprising: a developer container (fig.1, #3) configured to accommodate a developer containing toner and a carrier (see fig.1; col.3, ln.39-41); a developing rotation member configured to bear and convey the developer to a developing position where an electrostatic latent image formed on an image bearing member is developed (fig.1, #4); a magnet that is fixed in a non-rotatable manner in the developing rotation member (fig.1, #5), the magnet including a first magnetic pole (fig.1, #N1) and a second magnetic pole (fig.1, #S1), the first magnetic pole being opposed to the image bearing member at the developing position (fig.1, #N1 at #X), the second magnetic pole being arranged on an upstream of the first magnetic pole in a rotational direction of the developing rotation member (fig.1, see rotation direction #b), being adjacent to the first magnetic pole (fig.1, #S1 upstream and adjacent to #N1), and being a different pole from the first magnetic pole (see fig.1, S v. N); a regulating portion that is provided to oppose the developing rotation member in a non-contact manner and regulates an amount of the developer borne by the developing rotation member (fig.1, #6); a cover that is provided to oppose the developing rotation member in a non-contact manner and cover the developing rotation member (fig.1, #34); a first sheet that is fixed to the cover, the first sheet being arranged to contact a magnetic brush of the developer that is borne by the developing rotation member (fig.1, #18 see contact with toner on #4); at least at a maximum peak position of magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction with respect to an outer circumferential surface of the developing rotation member (fig.1, see location of #18 relative to #S1), the rotation-member-side surface of the first sheet being a surface on a side of contacting the magnetic brush of the developer that is borne by the developing rotation member, wherein, with respect to the rotational direction of the developing rotation member, a free end of the first sheet is disposed on a downstream of a position where the regulating portion opposes the developing rotation member and on an upstream of a closest position between the developing rotation member and the image bearing member (fig.1, free tip of #18 downstream of #6 and upstream of #X).
Regarding claim 5, Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) teach a development device wherein the first sheet is arranged such that the free end of the first sheet is in contact with the image bearing member (fig.1, #18 contacting #1).
Regarding claim 7, Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) teach a development device wherein the first sheet is provided over an entire region with a developer conveyance ability of the developing rotation member from one end to another end of the region in a longitudinal direction (fig.1; col.5, ln.3-9: this would necessarily have to be the case in order to perform as disclosed).
However, Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) fail to teach specifics of the sheet.
Regarding claim 1, Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) teach a flexible sheet for use in a development device (fig.2, #40 in #3a) comprising: a developer container (fig.2, #20) configured to accommodate a developer containing toner and a carrier (para.0039); a developing rotation member configured to bear and convey the developer (fig.2, #22a); a magnet that is fixed in a non-rotatable manner in the developing rotation member (fig.2, #22b); a cover that is provided to oppose the developing rotation member in a non-contact manner and cover the developing rotation member (fig.2&4, #20); a first sheet that is fixed to the cover (fig.4, #40a), the first sheet being arranged to contact toner and carrier (para.0055); and a second sheet that is fixed to the cover (fig.4, #40b), the second sheet being shorter than the first sheet (fig.4, see #40b v. #40a), the second sheet being arranged to be superimposed on a first surface of the first sheet that is a surface on an opposite side to a second surface of the first sheet (fig.4, #40b opposed to ‘left’ face of #40a and the ‘right’ surface is the second surface), and the second surface of the first sheet being a surface on a side of contacting the toner and carrier (see fig.2&4 & para.0055).
Regarding claim 8, Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) teach a flexible sheet for use in a development device wherein the second sheet is provided over an entire region with a developer conveyance ability of the developing rotation member from one end to another end of the region in a longitudinal direction (fig.5, #40b the entire width of #40a).
Regarding claim 9, Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) teach a flexible sheet for use in a development device wherein stiffness of the second sheet is higher than stiffness of the first sheet (para.0075).
Regarding claim 10, Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) teach a flexible sheet for use in a development device wherein the first sheet is a urethane sheet (para.0055: #40a is urethane).
Regarding claim 11, Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) teach a flexible sheet for use in a development device wherein the second sheet is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet (para.0055: #40B is PET).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the undefined sheet of Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) by thinking to try using the two layer, varied length sheet of Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) because the two are used for a similar purpose of preventing scattering or backflow from a specified direction in a developing device (para.0055,0068&0075-0076) and in a manner that enhances the resilience of the sheet to prevent deformation (para.0075-0076) while preventing damage to the developing rotation member and drum upon contact (para.0066&0076).
Upon combination, the two-sheet/thickness/rigidity sheet, when applied to the cover position in Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027), would necessarily fall within the positional relationships recited in claim 1 and dependents.
Regarding claim 2, Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) teach a flexible sheet for use in a development device wherein the second sheet is arranged to be superimposed on the first surface of the first sheet (fig.4, #40b on #40a; para.0055)
Regarding claim 2, upon combination, since the sheet of Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) is arranged, as best the Office can ascertain, in a region from an upstream-side half maximum position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction with respect to the outer circumferential surface of the developing rotation member to a downstream-side half maximum position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction with respect to the outer circumferential surface of the developing rotation member (fig.1, see attachment and location of #18 relative to #S1), the claim limitations would be met.
Regarding claim 3, Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) teach a flexible sheet for use in a development device the free end of the second sheet is disposed about half-way down the length of the sheet (fig.4, #40b/#L2 vs. #40a in section #D+)
Regarding claim 3, upon combination, since the sheet of Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) is arranged, as best the Office can ascertain, such that the half-way point, with respect to the rotational direction of the developing rotation member, is disposed on a downstream of the maximum peak position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in the normal direction with respect to the outer circumferential surface of the developing rotation member (fig.2, orientation of #S1 relative to #18), this limitation would be met.
Regarding claim 4, upon combination, since the sheet of Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) is arranged, as best the Office can ascertain, such that the half-way point, with respect to the rotational direction of the developing rotation member, is between the #S1 and #N1 poles, the free end of the second sheet very well may be disposed on a downstream of a downstream-side half maximum position of the magnetic flux density of the second magnetic pole in a normal direction with respect to the outer circumferential surface of the developing rotation member (fig.2, orientation of #S1 and #N1 relative to #18). Even if it is not by default, One of ordinary skill in the art may easily arrive at that configuration without undue experimentation when optimizing the configuration of the sheet of Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) for applicability in the device of Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027).
Regarding claim 6, upon combination, when the two-tiered sheet of Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270) is applied to the device of Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027), the following limitations would be necessarily met: wherein the second sheet is arranged such that the free end of the second sheet does not contact the image bearing member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants argue against the objections to the drawings and state that the claimed positions are shown in the annotated fig.4 included with the arguments on p.8. The Office contends that if an annotated drawing is needed to include the information lacking from the original drawings for depiction of the claimed subject matter, this supports the Office’s point that this information is lacking from the drawings as filed. Thus the Objections to the drawings regarding claims 1-4 are maintained. Additionally, even if a drawing that clearly showed the peak and half-maximums were to be included, it would still not appear to show the second sheet fixed to the cover at least at a maximum peak. This area seems to be at a different place entirely.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the case of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Murasaki et al. (US 4,819,027) in view of Gyoutoku et al. (US Pub.2011/0052270), the applicants correctly interpret the reference of Gyoutoku in the final paragraph at the bottom of p.10, but then argue against the reference. Gyoutoku is not being used to teach the exact configuration of “the second surface of the first sheet being a surface on a side of contacting the magnetic brush of the developer that is borne by the developing rotation member”, but to teach the concept of the second sheet on a surface of a first sheet to reinforce the first sheet against the force of developer and carrier contacting the opposing side. In the case of Gyouyoku, this force is coming from the stirring chamber. In the case of Murasaki, the force would be coming from the magnetic brush itself. The Office maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would think to try to use the sheet of Gyoutoku in the developer brush contacting area of Murasaki and thereby easily arrive at the claimed invention.
As such, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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/
9/10/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights