Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/059,280

MAGNET ROLLER, DEVELOPING ROLLER, AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Examiner
BEATTY, ROBERT B
Art Unit
2852
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Kyocera Document Solutions Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
1139 granted / 1232 resolved
+24.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1252
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
21.5%
-18.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1232 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claims 2-4 are 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 2, line 3, the applicant recites “the surface” however two surfaces have been claimed beforehand (the shaft surface and the magnet surface). In claim 3, line 3, the applicant recites “the surface” however two surfaces have been claimed beforehand. In claim 4, line 3, the applicant recites “a dimension of the magnet in the radial direction” which is unclear. A “dimension” in the radial direction can be of any value and thus this phrase is indefinite. Does applicant mean the radius of the magnet (which would have a specific defined value)? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1,5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (U.S. 5,019,796). Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teach a magnetic roller core 170 (see Fig.9) including a shaft 165 and a plurality of magnetic segments 130N, 130S arranged around the shaft in the circumferential direction; the magnetic segments have recess portions 160 which are recessed with respect to a surface facing the outer surface of the shaft; the shaft having prongs 162 extending from the shaft which fit into the recesses; the magnetic segments having side faces 130L, 130R and a bottom face 130B which have the recesses and an adhesive is used to bond the magnetic side segments to each other and the bottom face to the outer surface of the shaft. See col.10, lines 45-68. Regarding claims 5-6, the magnetic segments are made from a mixture of powered ferrite material in a thermoplastic binder (resin material). The ferrite material can contain rare earth material such as a cobalt rare earth alloy. See col.7, line 50 – col.8, line 15. Regarding claims 7-8, the magnetic roller core 170 is used as a developing roller having a cylindrical sleeve containing the magnetic roller core for developing images using a developer material within a printing machine (image forming apparatus). See col.1, lines 26-49. 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 5,019,796). Lee et al. taught supra discloses most of what is claimed except at least one magnetic segment having a plurality of recesses. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide for a multiplied effect by providing for a plurality of recesses for at least one segment of the magnetic roller core so that the magnetic segments would be connected with the shaft in a more secure manner (two connections are better than one connection). See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8,11 for case law related to duplicating a part for a multiplied effect. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 5,019,796) in view of Inase et al. (U.S. 6,788,178). Lee et al. taught supra discloses most of what is claimed except at least one magnetic segment having a plurality of recesses. Inase et al. teach a magnetic roller comprising a plurality of magnetic segments 2a, 2b, 2c and a shaft 1 which are fixed together using an adhesive (see Fig.2, col.1, lines 38-60). In order to increase the adhesion effect between the magnetic segments, a plurality of recesses 51 are provided on one or both sides of each magnetic segment (Fig.4, col.8, lines 37-67). It is noted that Inase et al. describes the recesses are between the magnetic segments and is silent to recesses facing the outer surface of the shaft. However, since Lee et al. teach to use at least one recess to secure the magnetic segments to the outer surface of the shaft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a plurality of such recesses filled with adhesive (without the use of the prongs) to secure the magnetic segments at an interfacing shaft outer surface to provide for a more enhanced connection between the two parts as taught in Inase et al. (col.8, lines 58-63) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 3, the ratio of a sum of widths of the plurality of recesses portions in the circumferential direction to a width of the surface in the circumferential direction being 12% or more and 25% or less is not anticipated, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record. Regarding claim 4, the ratio of a depth of each of the plurality of recesses portions with respect to a dimension of the magnet in the radial direction of the shaft center being 7% or more and 14% or less is not anticipated, suggested or rendered obvious by the prior art of record. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malespin et al., Jones et al., Loubier et al. and Kotani et al. all teach various magnetic rollers that are relevent to the claimed invention. Ezure et al. is a related application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B BEATTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-2130. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7 to 3. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephanie Bloss, can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-2130. 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). /ROBERT B BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602002
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS TO REDUCE POSITIONAL DEVIATION BETWEEN DOORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596317
TONER CONTAINER HAVING SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS AND IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596324
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS INCLUDING MOTOR SUPPORTED BY FRAME MEMBER AND METAL PLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591196
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS WITH USER OPERATED COVER FOR REMOVABLE UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591186
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+3.1%)
1y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1232 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month