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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, and 5-7 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,253,810, from parent U.S. App. No 18/192,902 in view of well known prior art.
Regarding independent claim 1, present claim 1 omits several elements from patented claim 1, such as a fan which present claim 2 claims, and adds:
the plurality of light emitting portions of the exposure unit are mounted on a first surface of the substrate of the exposure unit;
the IC mounted on a second surface of the substrate; and,
the substrate has two ends in a longitudinal direction with respect to its center.
The patented claims fail to specify on which surface the respective elements are mounted.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to omit unwanted elements without retaining their functions if such an element were not desired. MPEP 2144.04 (II)(A). Here, the claim relies on an airflow generated otherwise than by a fan. The function of the fan is not desired to generate the airflow, and thus it would have been obvious to omit the fan of the patented claims that generates the airflow. Present claim 2 claims the fan of claim 1.
Three dimensional objects, including the substrate of the patented claims, extend in all directions. As such, the substrate of the patented claims inherently has two ends in a longitudinal direction with respect to its center, because it extends in all directions.
The present claims fail to specify where the first and second surfaces are with respect to each other on the substrate, as in: on opposite sides in the thickness direction; or, on opposite sides in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction and the longitudinal direction. More particularly, the present claims even fail to claim how many sides the substrate has, let alone whether the first and second surfaces are on the same or different sides.
Each of these added limitations are inherent features of an exposure unit of an image forming apparatus. The direction the exposure light must travel to expose is in one direction – toward the target. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have provided the chips on the first surface of a substrate, facing the target so as to expose, and the IC on a second surface of the substrate, so as avoid blocking the exposure light from reaching the target. Examiner takes official notice that such is well known in the art of electrophotography, as evinced by: Furuta, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0048761, fig 5; Takano et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0288866, figs 13; Kawasumi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0288869, figs 13; and, Kojima, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0397839, figs 3. See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance.
Additionally and alternatively, more basically, Examiner takes official notice that no two objects can occupy the same positions on the same surface at the same time. See MPEP 2144.03 (C) for guidance. As a result, the first surface where the light emitting portions of the exposure unit are mounted must be different from the second surface where the is IC mounted, even if the two surfaces are on the same side of the substrate, because the light emitting portions and the IC are different objects.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 adds the fan of patented claim 1, along with an intake port and an intake duct. Such are inherent features that avoid implosion by permitting air to be taken in by the fan as intended, rather than the fan merely creating negative pressures to the point where the patented device of claim 1 implodes due to the negative pressure.
Regarding claims 6- 8, patented claims 5-7 claim its limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art either alone or in combination teaches the following limitations in combination with the other limitations:
Regarding independent claim 1, wherein the substrate includes a first end on a first side with respect to a center of the substrate in the longitudinal direction and a second end on a second side with respect to the center of the substrate in the longitudinal direction,
the IC is provided between the center and the first end of the substrate in the longitudinal direction, and
the first duct includes a first opening which intake the airflow into the first duct, and
the first opening is provided between the center and the first end of the substrate in the longitudinal direction.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teaches branched ducts around exposure units, from Applicants and others, for cooling portions of the circuitry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (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 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852