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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the invention of Group I, claims 7-12, in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
Lined through references the information disclosure statement filed 02/06/2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Specification
TITLE - 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.
JUMBO CASE - The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 7 introduces the limitation “a replaceable roller member”. For the purpose of examination over prior art, and in light of the original specification, this limitation is interpreted as a transfer roller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3078459 (herein forward D1) in view of US 5,646,717 to Hiroshima et al. and JPH05297740 to Ishiyama et al.
Regarding claim 7, D1 teaches an image forming apparatus, comprising:
a replaceable roller member (12);
an applying unit (20) configured to apply a voltage to the roller member;
a current detecting unit (56) configured to detect a current flowing in the roller member to which the voltage is applied; and
a controlling unit (17) capable of calculating a resistance of the roller member based on a value of the current detected after application of the voltage to the roller member,
wherein the controlling unit is configured to determine whether or not the roller member has been replaced of an amount of change from a value of a first resistance calculated at a first timing to a value of a second resistance calculated at a second timing later than the first timing (determination whether or not the roller has been replaced on the basis of the standardized resistance of the transfer roller being lower than or equal/larger than a certain value) (see disclosure regarding the sixth embodiment, Figs. 35-37).
D1 teaches the resistance of the roller member increases with usage over the lifetime of the roller member; the roller member can be replaced when the resistance value of the roller member becomes larger than the initial value by a certain value or more. However, D1 appears silent about determining whether or not the roller member has been replaced on the basis of a difference between a maximum value and an average value of the current detected after application of the voltage to the roller member.
Hiroshima discloses that the time required for conversion of the current during constant current control is different depending on the resistance of the transfer roller; with a transfer roller having a high resistance (col. 19 lines 15-20). Combining these teachings with D1, a transfer roller having an increased/high resistance prompting replacement, would exhibit lower overshoot than a transfer roller in an initial state.
Ishiyama discloses a controller determining a status of a transfer roller on the basis of a magnitude of overshoot at the time of a rise of the current as an alternative method to making the determination based on a value of the current flowing to the transfer section (Example 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of D1, Hiroshima, and Ishiyama such determination of whether or not the roller member has been replaced is based on an magnitude of overshoot of the current instead of a value of the current/calculated resistance, such that the controlling unit is capable of calculating a difference between a maximum value and an average value of the current detected after application of the voltage to the roller member (i.e. magnitude of overshoot), wherein the controlling unit is configured to determine whether or not the roller member has been replaced on the basis of an amount of change from a value of a first difference calculated at a first timing to a value of a second difference calculated at a second timing later than the first timing, as an obvious to try alternative configuration choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination above further renders obvious:
(claim 8) The image forming apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controlling unit is configured to determine that the roller member has been replaced in a case where the amount of change from the value of the first difference to the value of the second difference is equal to or greater than a threshold value (overshoot is larger for low resistance/new roller).
(claim 11) The image forming apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controlling unit is configured to acquire the maximum value over a first predetermined period (i.e., period when overshoot happens) from immediately after application of voltage to the roller member by the applying unit, and to acquire the average value over a second predetermined period (i.e., period after overshoot) after the first predetermined period has passed (see Hiroshima: Fig.28-29, Ishiyama: Fig.12).
(claim 12) The image forming apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the maximum value of the current is a value according to the occurrence of overshoot at the time of a rise of the current in the first predetermined period (upon combination).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30.
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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights