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 12 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claim 3, lines 2-3, introduces “a depth” and “a length” which reads as two distinct dimensions. Lines 10-11 then go on to state that each of the depth and length has values of 23% or less and 1.0 mm or more. However, while the claim reads as both each having these metrics, the specification merely refers to both dimensions together, repeatedly, as if they were one. For example: “each have a depth and a length P”, “The depth and the length P of each of…”, “Setting the depth and the length P of each”, “(width W, depth, and length P)”, etc. Additionally, both the specification and the drawings only designate one length P and has no designation for the depth (see fig.5).
Claim 3 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.
In claim 3, lines 2-3, introduces “a depth” and “a length” which reads as two distinct dimensions. Lines 10-11 then go on to state that each of the depth and length has values of 23% or less and 1.0 mm or more. However, while the claim reads as both each having these metrics, the specification merely refers to both dimensions together, repeatedly, as if they were one. For example: “each have a depth and a length P”, “The depth and the length P of each of…”, “Setting the depth and the length P of each”, “(width W, depth, and length P)”, etc. Additionally, both the specification and the drawings only designate one length P and has no designation for the depth (see fig.5). As best the Office can ascertain, the applicants may be intending to convey that the recessed portion has a depth and the convex portion has a length, the depth and length are the same size, and each have the metrics disclosed in the last clause. If this is the case, the claim must be revised to clearly convey the meaning. Currently, the claim language is rendered indefinite.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) teach a magnet roller (fig.1), comprising: a shaft (fig.1-3, #2/#2a); and a first magnet piece (fig.2&3, #3b) and a second magnet piece (fig.2&3, #3a) that are bonded to an outer circumference of the shaft with an adhesive (col.3, ln.18-30), wherein the first magnet piece has a first surface (fig.3, surface of #3b with indicator #16), and a recessed portion that is recessed with respect to the first surface (fig.3, #8 of #3b), and the second magnet piece has a second surface (fig.3, #18 surface of #3a) that is held in contact with the first surface (see fig.2), and a convex portion that protrudes with respect to the second surface (fig.3, portion to which #7 is drawn) and fits into the recessed portion (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) teach a magnet roller wherein the recessed portion and the convex portion each have a width in a radial direction of the shaft, and the width is 40% or less of a distance between one end and another end in the radial direction of each of the first surface and the second surface (fig.3, the width of #8 along the line of #16 is less than 40%, see also fig.2) and is 0.5 mm or more (col.3. ln.48-49, given the diameter listed, this dimension would likely be met).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) teach a magnet roller wherein the recessed portion and the convex portion each have a depth and a length in directions orthogonal to the radial direction of the shaft (fig.2&3, point #7 and recess #8 each have a depth/length in a direction orthogonal to the radial line along #16/#18), the first magnet piece further has a third surface in addition to the first surface and the recessed portion(fig.3, surface that faces #3C), in a case where a circular arc with a center at an axial center of the shaft has both ends at a midpoint from the one end to the other end in the radial direction of the first surface and at the third surface, a length of the circular arc is defined as a predetermined circular arc length (fig.2&3, such an arc can be drawn), and each of the depth and the length is 23% or less of the predetermined circular arc length (fig.2&3, depth to #7/#8 is less than 23% of arc in #3b) and is 1.0 mm or more (col.3. ln.48-49, given the diameter listed, this dimension would likely be met).
However, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) fail to teach the recessed portion having mutually opposing side surfaces.
Regarding claim 1, Bray (US 3,721,189) teaches a magnet roller (fig.1), comprising: a shaft (fig.4, #12); and a first magnet piece (fig.4, #20) and a an adjoining interconnecting structure (fig.4, #22) that are attached to an outer circumference of the shaft (see fig.4), wherein the first magnet piece has a first surface (fig.4, surface #34), and a recessed portion that is recessed with respect to the first surface (fig.4, #32), wherein the recessed portion has mutually opposing side surfaces (fig.4, top and bottom of #32 facing each other), and the adjoining interconnecting structure has a second surface that is held in contact with the first surface (see fig.4), and a convex portion that protrudes with respect to the second surface (fig.4, portion which projects into #32) and fits into the recessed portion (see fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the connectedly interacting portions of adjacent magnets in Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) by using differently keyed rectangular recesses and convex portions as utilized in Bray (US 3,721,189) because the configuration of Bray is one of many known configurations that can be chosen (col.2, ln.38-44).
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908).
Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) teach all of the limitations of claim 1 and/or claims 1 and 2, upon which claims 8 and 4 depend.
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) teach a developing apparatus with the magnet roller according to claim 1 (col.1, ln.12-16; fig.1-3), wherein the developing magnet roller has a sleeve inside which the magnet roller is arranged (see fig.1& col.1, ln.12-14); but fail to be explicit about the configuration of the developing device.
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) teach a magnet roller wherein the first magnet piece and the second magnet piece include magnetic powder and resin, and the magnetic powder includes ferrite (col.3, ln.38-40).
However, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) fail to disclose specifics about the developing device and fail to teach the recessed portion being symmetric about a midpoint of the first and second surfaces.
Regarding claim 4, Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) teach a magnet roller (fig.2), comprising: a shaft (fig.4, #118); and a first magnet piece (fig.2, any of #120, #122, & #124) and a second magnet piece (fig.2, any other of #120, #122, & #124) that are bonded to an outer circumference of the shaft, wherein the first magnet piece has a first surface (fig.2, surface of #120 or #124 with recess equivalent to indicator #134 or #136), and a recessed portion that is recessed with respect to the first surface (fig.2, recess equivalent to indicator #134 or #136), and the second magnet piece has a second surface facing an adjacent magnet surface (see fig.2), and the roll being provided with a convex portion that protrudes and fits into the recessed portion (see fig.2, #134 & #136), wherein the recessed portion and the convex portion each have a width in a radial direction of the shaft, and the width is 40% or less of a distance between one end and another end in the radial direction of the first surface (see fig.2, radial width of #134 & #136); wherein the recessed portion and the convex portion are respectively symmetric on a side closer to the shaft and a side further to the shaft with respect to the midpoint of the one end and the other end in the radial direction of the first surface and the second surface (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 5, Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) teach a magnet roller wherein the first magnet piece and the second magnet piece include magnetic powder and resin, and the magnetic powder includes ferrite (para.0030).
Regarding claim 8, Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) teach a developing apparatus (fig.1, #22) with the magnet roller (fig.1&2, #100), comprising: a developing magnet roller arranged to face an image carrier that carries an electrostatic latent image (fig.1, facing #12), wherein the developing magnet roller has a sleeve inside which the magnet roller is arranged (fig.2&4, #150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the roller of Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) to be configured to face an image carrier via a sleeve as in Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) because it is a known configuration in the art for developing devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the magnet mating configuration of Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) with the matched groove and projection configuration of Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) because the two are functional equivalents for ensuring quick and precise arrangement of the magnets in specific positions and have substantially the same function in substantially the same way to reach substantially the same result (para.0032&0034).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) and in view of Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of 田村 Tamura et al. (JP Pub.3308187 B2).
Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) and in view of Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) teach all of the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 6 depends.
However, Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) and in view of Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) fail to teach the use of a rare-earth powder.
Regarding claim 6, 田村 Tamura et al. (JP Pub.3308187 B2) teach a magnet piece for a magnet roller wherein the magnet piece include magnetic powder and resin, and the magnetic powder includes ferrite (p.2, paragraph 1; p.4, first three paragraphs of Best Mode), wherein the magnetic powder further includes rare-earth magnetic powder (p.4, final full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ferrite powder/resin magnet piece of Yamashita et al. (US 4,558,294) in view of Bray (US 3,721,189) and in view of Jones et al. (US Pub.2003/0123908) by using the ferrite and rare-earth powder mix as in 田村 Tamura et al. (JP Pub.3308187 B2) because it is a known configuration in the art for that purpose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “manufacturing method for the magnet roller… mounting a first magnet piece and a second magnet piece on a base; bringing a second surface into contact with a first surface so that a convex … fits into a recessed …; lifting … with the convex portion fitting into the recessed portion from the base; and bonding the first magnet piece and the second magnet piece to an outer circumference of a shaft with an adhesive” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 regarding claim 3 by saying the claim has been amended to overcome the rejection. The Office respectfully disagrees. While the amendment does clarify the phrasing regarding the circular arc length, it does not clarify the difference or relationship between the depth and length phrasing. As such, those parts of the rejection are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 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.
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.
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/
8/7/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights