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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/11/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/11/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that an incorrect definition of “mutually exclusive” renders the restriction improper. This is not found persuasive as detailed infra.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement with respect to the actual definition of “mutually exclusive”, the election has been treated as an election without traverse with respect to the actual definition of “mutually exclusive” (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located … at a position close to the first communication portion.”
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, there is no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner shall construe the limitation “at a position close to the first communication portion” as best as one is able.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the partition extends substantially parallel to the bottom of the second conveyance path and in a substantially horizontal direction.”
The term “substantially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, there is no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner shall construe the limitations “substantially parallel” and “substantially horizontal ” as best as one is able.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the image bearer united with the developing device”, and claim 10 recites the limitation “the image bearer”. Claims 9 and 10 each depend from claim 1 only through “the developing device according to claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear whether these image bearers are the same image bearers from claim 1, or other image bearers.
Examiner suggests amending to recite --the image bearer of claim 1—in each of claims 9 and 10.
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)(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, 3, 4, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yoo, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0371450.
Regarding independent claim 1, a developing device that develops a latent image formed n a surface of an image bearer, the developing device comprising:
a housing to store developer (110);
a developing roller (13) to:
face the image bearer (fig 1); and
bear the developer (¶ 16);
a first conveying screw (241) disposed below the developing roller and facing the developing roller (fig 2B) to:
supply the developer to the developing roller (¶ 30, 32) while conveying the developer from one end to another end of the housing in a longitudinal direction of the housing (fig 2A); and
collect the developer separated from the developing roller (¶ 30, 32, 17, through the action of regulating member 16 returning the regulated developer back to the developing room 210);
a second conveying screw (242) disposed below and opposite the first conveying screw (fig 2B) to:
convey the developer from said another end to the one end of the housing in the longitudinal direction (fig 2A); and
form a circulation path for the developer together with the first conveying screw (fig 2A);
a partition (230) separating a first conveyance path in which the first conveying crew is disposed and a second conveyance path in which the second conveying crew is disposed (fig 2A), in a region excluding a first communication portion formed on the one end of the housing in the longitudinal direction (232) and a second communication portion formed on said another end of the housing in the longitudinal direction (231); and
a toner concentration sensor (240) to detect a toner concentration of the developer,
wherein a detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located below the partition (fig 2A) at a bottom of the second conveyance path (fig 2A) and at a position close to the first communication portion (it fits on the same figure so it’s close).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, wherein the second conveying screw includes a shaft facing the first communication portion (fig 2A), a screw portion wound around the shaft (fig 2A, fig 4), and a paddle (¶ 42-45, fig 4, 5) standing in a radial direction on the shaft.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, wherein a shaft of the second conveying screw and a shaft of the first conveying screw are located above the toner concentration sensor when viewed in a cross section orthogonal to a rotation axis of the developing roller (figs 2, 4, 5, noting that even if the toner concentration sensor is “mounted on the developer transporting portion 201”, ¶ 33, there are times during the rotational period when such limitation is met, as depicted in fig 2A).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, wherein a virtual line connecting a rotation center of the developing roller and a rotation center of the first conveying screw is inclined obliquely downward away from the image bearer by an angle of 30 ± 10 degrees with respect to a first vertical line passing the rotation center of the developing roller when viewed in a cross-section orthogonal to a rotation axis of the developing roller (fig 2B, MPEP 2125 (I)),
wherein a virtual line connecting the rotation center of the first conveying screw and a rotation center of the second conveying screw is inclined obliquely downward away from the image bearer by an angle of 20 degrees or less with respect to a second vertical line passing the rotation center of the first conveying screw when viewed in the cross-section orthogonal to the rotation axis of the developing roller (fig 2B, MPEP 2125 (I)), and
wherein a virtual line connecting the rotation center of the second conveying screw and a center of a detection surface of the toner concentration sensor is inclined obliquely downward away from the image bearer by an angle of 20 degrees or less with respect to the second vertical line when viewed in a cross-section orthogonal to the rotation axis of the developing roller (figs 2, 4, 5, noting that even if the toner concentration sensor is “mounted on the developer transporting portion 201”, ¶ 33, there are times during the rotational period when such limitation is met, such as when as depicted in fig 2A).
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, wherein the partition extends substantially parallel to the bottom of the second conveyance path and in a substantially horizontal direction (fig 2A).
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, a process cartridge attachable to and detachable from a body of an image forming apparatus (¶ 14, 16), the process cartridge comprising:
the developing device according to claim 1 (supra); and
the image bearer united with the developing device (¶ 16).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1, an image forming apparatus (fig 1) comprising:
the developing device according to claim 1 (supra); and
the image bearer (14).
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mandai et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0108797.
Regarding independent claim 1, a developing device that develops a latent image formed on a surface of an image bearer (104), the developing device comprising:
a housing to store developer (fig 3, the housing);
a developing roller (131) to:
face the image bearer (fig 3); and
bear the developer (¶ 51);
a first conveying screw (133) disposed below the developing roller and facing the developing roller to:
supply the developer to the developing roller (¶ 75) while conveying the developer from one end to another end of the housing in a longitudinal direction of the housing (fig 4); and
collect the developer separated from the developing roller (¶ 75, any developer separated from the developing roller drops into the feeding tank 138, and is collected and conveyed from the first conveying screw from the feeding tank 138 to the agitation tank 137);
a second conveying screw (132) disposed below and opposite the first conveying screw (fig 3) to:
convey the developer from said another end to the one end of the housing in the longitudinal direction (fig 4); and
form a circulation path for the developer together with the first conveying screw (fig 4);
a partition (the partition of 134, ¶ 74) separating a first conveyance path in which the first conveying crew is disposed and a second conveyance path in which the second conveying crew is disposed (fig 4), in a region excluding a first communication portion (134b) formed on the one end of the housing in the longitudinal direction and a second communication portion (134a) formed on said another end of the housing in the longitudinal direction; and
a toner concentration sensor (SE1 together with detection subsidiary part 135 on the rotation shaft of second conveying screw 132, ¶ 84-86 describing their operation) to detect a toner concentration of the developer,
wherein a detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located below the partition at a bottom of the second conveyance path (figs 3, 4) and at a position close to the first communication portion (fig 4, it fits on the same figure so it’s close).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, wherein the second conveying screw includes a shaft (132a) facing the first communication portion (figs 3, 4), a screw portion (132b) wound around the shaft, and a paddle (135) standing in a radial direction on the shaft (figs 5).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, wherein a shaft of the second conveying screw and a shaft of the first conveying screw are located above the toner concentration sensor when viewed in a cross section orthogonal to a rotation axis of the developing roller (figs 3, 4, noting that one is free to tilt the unattached developing device so that this limitation is met, even if its placement while attached is not as shown in fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, wherein a virtual line connecting a rotation center of the developing roller and a rotation center of the first conveying screw is inclined obliquely downward away from the image bearer by an angle of 30 ± 10 degrees with respect to a first vertical line passing the rotation center of the developing roller when viewed in a cross-section orthogonal to a rotation axis of the developing roller (fig 3, MPEP 2125 (I), noting that one is free to tilt the unattached developing device so that this limitation is met, even if its placement while attached is not as shown in fig 3),
wherein a virtual line connecting the rotation center of the first conveying screw and a rotation center of the second conveying screw is inclined obliquely downward away from the image bearer by an angle of 20 degrees or less with respect to a second vertical line passing the rotation center of the first conveying screw when viewed in the cross-section orthogonal to the rotation axis of the developing roller (fig 3, MPEP 2125 (I), noting that one is free to tilt and rotate the unattached developing device so that this limitation is simultaneously met, even if its placement while attached is not as shown in fig 3), and
wherein a virtual line connecting the rotation center of the second conveying screw and a center of a detection surface of the toner concentration sensor is inclined obliquely downward away from the image bearer by an angle of 20 degrees or less with respect to the second vertical line when viewed in a cross-section orthogonal to the rotation axis of the developing roller ((fig 3, MPEP 2125 (I), noting that one is free to tilt the unattached developing device so that this limitation is also simultaneously met, even if its placement while attached is not as shown in fig 3, and further noting that because the detection subsidiary part 135 rotates along with the shaft, there are times during the rotational period when such limitation is met).
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, wherein the partition extends substantially parallel to the bottom of the second conveyance path and in a substantially horizontal direction (figs 3, 4).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1, an image forming apparatus (fig 1) comprising:
the developing device according to claim 1 (supra); and
the image bearer (104).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futoshi, JP 2014-153607, in view of well known prior art.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futoshi, JP 2014-153607, in view of well known prior art, and Shigemi et al., JP 2005-091914.
Regarding independent claim 1, Futoshi teaches a developing device that develops a latent image formed on a surface of an image bearer (11), the developing device comprising:
a housing to store developer (fig 2, the housing);
a developing roller (20) to:
face the image bearer (fig 2); and
bear the developer (“As illustrated in FIG. 2, the developing device 2 includes a developing roller (developer carrier) 20, a stirring and conveying member 42, and a developing container 22.”);
a first conveying screw (44) disposed below the developing roller (fig 2) and facing the developing roller (fig 2) to:
supply the developer to the developing roller (“Then, the developer is pumped up from the first transfer chamber 22c to the second transfer chamber 22d by the pumping blade 43c. Thereafter, the developer is supplied to the developing roller 20 while being stirred and conveyed in the A2 direction by the second spiral 44. The developer on the developing roller 20 that has not been used for development falls from the developing roller 20 and is collected in the second transport chamber 22d. And it is conveyed by the 2nd spiral 44 to the other side of the 2nd conveyance chamber 22d, and falls to the 1st conveyance chamber 22c from the communicating part 22f.”) while conveying the developer from one end to another end of the housing in a longitudinal direction of the housing (fig 3); and
collect the developer separated from the developing roller (“The developer on the developing roller 20 that has not been used for development falls from the developing roller 20 and is collected in the second transport chamber 22d.”);
a second conveying screw (43) disposed below and opposite the first conveying screw (fig 2) to:
convey the developer from said another end to the one end of the housing in the longitudinal direction (fig 3); and
form a circulation path for the developer together with the first conveying screw (fig 3);
a partition (22b) separating a first conveyance path in which the first conveying crew is disposed and a second conveyance path in which the second conveying crew is disposed (fig 3), in a region excluding a first communication portion (22e) formed on the one end of the housing in the longitudinal direction and a second communication portion (22f) formed on said another end of the housing in the longitudinal direction.
Futoshi further teaches development with a magnetic brush formed on the developing roller (Then, the developer is supplied from the second spiral 44 to the developing roller 20, and a magnetic brush is formed on the developing roller 20.).
Futoshi fails to teach:
a toner concentration sensor to detect a toner concentration of the developer,
wherein a detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located below the partition at a bottom of the second conveyance path and at a position close to the first communication portion.
Examiner takes official notice that providing a toner concentration sensor directly beneath a conveying screw is well known in the art of electrophotography to detect a toner concentration of the developer when using a developer that forms a magnetic brush on a developing roller, so that toner may be replenished as needed. See, e.g.: Tanaka, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0268584, fig 2; Kubota, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0198908, fig 4; Hayashi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0318062, fig 9; Mihara et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0305484, fig 2; and, Hayashi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0176836, fig 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide a toner concentration sensor to detect a toner concentration of the developer, wherein a detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located below the partition at a bottom of the second conveyance path. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so in to detect the toner concentration of the developer to replenish the toner as needed.
As combined, “the detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located … at a position close to the first communication portion”. Each of the above references teach adding the toner concentration sensor to the bottom of the cartridge directly below the conveying screw, such that wherever one places it within those constraints, it will be closer to first communication portion than the Moon. Therefore, the combination teaches the detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located at a position close to the first communication portion.
Additionally and alternatively, Examiner assumes arguendo, without conceding, that Applicant intended the limitation, “the detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located … at a position close to the first communication portion” to mean --the detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located … at a position closer to the first communication portion than the second communication portion--.
Shigemi teaches a toner concentration sensor to detect a toner concentration of a magnetic developer. Shigemi teaches that adequate placement of the toner concentration sensor is “at a position closer to the first communication portion than the second communication portion” so as to accurately detect the toner density:
Further, when a new developer (having a different toner concentration from the existing developer in the developer housing 21) is added from the developer supply port 32, the developer is sufficiently mixed and stirred while reaching the sensor 36. Therefore, the position of the sensor 36 needs to be separated from the developer supply port 32.
Further, the place where the developer is likely to stay in the developer transport path 29 is in the vicinity of both ends of the developer circulation path 31, and in particular, the developer is transferred from the developer transport path 29 to the developer transport path 28. It is necessary to pay attention to staying in the vicinity of the communication port 30b (near the blade 25c of the auger 25).
Furthermore, at the bottom of the developer transport path 29, the developer housing 21 and the blade 25b of the rotating auger 25 have an appropriate gap, so that the developer tends to stay here.
For the reasons described above, the sensor 36 is disposed on the side of the developer conveyance path 29 at a position not facing the communication port 30b on the downstream side of the developer conveyance path 29 and at a position upstream of the communication port 30b. Thus, it becomes possible to detect the toner density of the developer more accurately.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide “the detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction is located … at a position closer to the first communication portion than the second communication portion”. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to accurately detect the toner density.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, the combinations further teach wherein a shaft of the second conveying screw and a shaft of the first conveying screw are located above the toner concentration sensor when viewed in a cross section orthogonal to a rotation axis of the developing roller.
As combined, the well known prior art teach placing the toner concentration center directly below the conveying screw.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Futoshi further teaches wherein the developing roller rotates in a direction opposite to a rotation direction of the image bearer (fig 2), and
wherein the first conveying screw and the second conveying screw rotate in the same direction as the direction in which the developing roller rotates (fig 2).
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, Futoshi further teaches wherein the partition extends substantially parallel to the bottom of the second conveyance path and in a substantially horizontal direction (fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1, an image forming apparatus (fig 1) comprising:
the developing device according to claim 1 (supra, as combined); and
the image bearer (fig 1, ref 11).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0371450, in view of Okuno, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0096482; and Yoshida et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0132026.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandai et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0108797, in view of Okuno, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0096482; and Yoshida et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0132026.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futoshi, JP 2014-153607, in view of well known prior art, and further in view of Okuno, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0096482; and Yoshida et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0132026.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futoshi, JP 2014-153607, in view of well known prior art, and Shigemi et al., JP 2005-091914, and further in view of Okuno, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0096482; and Yoshida et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0132026.
The above are silent with respect to the relative sizes of the developing roller and the two conveying screws, and as such, fail to teach:
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, wherein a roller diameter of the developing roller is greater than a screw diameter of the second conveying screw, and
wherein the screw diameter of the second conveying screw is greater than a screw diameter of the first conveying screw.
Okuno teaches that the relative sizes of a developing roller and an adjacent conveying screw is a result effective variable that affects how well the adjacent conveying screw can retrieve excess developer from the developing roller and convey it away (¶ 48, fig 5). Okuno teaches that providing curved walls around the developing roller further prevents the accumulation of excess developer (¶ 50). With these two together, one can prevent recovered developer from being supplied back to the developing region again as is, ¶ 52, that is, without mixing. Okuno thus teaches that the relative sizes of a developing roller and an adjacent conveying screw is a result effective variable that affects how long a recover developer lingers around a developing roller before adequate mixing. As such, Okuno teaches optimizing the result effective variable so as to make the diameter of the first conveying screw smaller than that of the developing roller.
Yoshida teaches that the relative sizes of adjacent conveying screws is a result effective variable that affects how well mixing occurs between the two chambers containing the screws, ¶ 65, as well as within the chamber containing a toner concentration sensor to improve accuracy, ¶ 54, 56. The effect arises because the conveying ability of the screw away from the developing roller, and in the chamber containing the toner concentration sensor is higher than that of the other screw, ¶ 52. As such, Yoshida teaches optimizing the result effective variable so as to make the diameter of the second conveying screw larger than that of the first conveying screw.
Combining these teachings regarding optimizing the respective result effective variables, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would want to optimize the relative sizes of all of the developing roller, as well as the first and second conveying screws. If the second conveying screw becomes too large, its conveying ability increases as taught by Yoshida. But, there is still the concern of the accumulation of excess developer around the developing roller as taught by Okuno. Were the second conveying screw made much larger than the first conveying screw, the second conveying screw’s increased conveying ability would inundate the chamber containing the first conveying screw with excess developer. As a result, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would optimize the relative sizes of all of the developing roller, as well as the first and second conveying screws in order to avoid excess developer around the developing roller, while maintaining adequate mixing for better toner concentration detection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the relative sizes of all of the developing roller, as well as the first and second conveying screws through routine experimentation. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 220 F.2d 454 (C.C.P.A. 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within known prior art general conditions is obvious, even if the ranges do not overlap); See In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 100 F. 3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). The specification discloses neither the critical nature of the claimed optimum relative sizes of all of the developing roller, as well as the first and second conveying screws, nor any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 with respect to the Restriction Requirement have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
A) the invention are not mutually exclusive because a figure shows all the separate features combined, and thus the restriction requirement is improper.
B) when applying an incorrect definition of “mutually exclusive”, Examiner has failed to provide an appropriate explanation of a different field of search.
Applicant applies a foreign definition of “mutually exclusive” as being unable to be represented in a single figure with all of the separate features of the separate inventions. “Related inventions in the same statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would not infringe the first invention.” MPEP 806.05. Applying the actual definition, each independent claim contains limitations that the other does not. As such, the first independent claim would not infringe on the second, and the second independent claim would not infringe on the first. The inventions are thus “mutually exclusive”. Examiner construes Applicant’s argument as an admission that a foreign definition of “mutually exclusive” would be required to render the restriction requirement improper, and Examiner thanks Applicant for the admission. Moreover, because this is a traversal, “all errors to be relied upon in [a] petition must [have been] distinctly and specifically pointed out in a timely filed traverse by the applicant”. MPEP 818.01(c). Applicant has failed to distinctly and specifically point out any errors with respect to the actual definition of “mutually exclusive”. As such, Applicant further admits that the restriction is free of error with respect to the actual definition of “mutually exclusive”. Examiner further thanks Applicant for this admission. More importantly, Applicant has failed to preserve the right to petition based on the actual definition of “mutually exclusive” through the failure to distinctly and specifically point out any errors with respect to the actual definition of “mutually exclusive”. MPEP 818.01(c). Examiner invites Applicant to review MPEP 809 for what linking claims are, and when rejoinder would be proper between restricted inventions in the presence of a linking claim. Rejoinder is inappropriate at this time.
Because Applicant has applied a foreign definition of “mutually exclusive”, Applicant argues that under the improper definition there is no appropriate explanation of a different field of search. Under the correct definition of “mutually exclusive”, Examiner had pointed out that “the mutually exclusive characteristics require a different field of search”. Office Action, dated 3/10/26, at page 3. As Applicant admits, under the correct definition of “mutually exclusive”, the claims are indeed mutually exclusive, and as such, each claim has a limitation that the other does not. The mutually exclusive characteristics require a different field of search – each claim has a limitation the other does not. Applicant’s failure to consult the MPEP for the correct definition of “mutually exclusive” does not diminish Examiner’s statement of burden. Applicant provides no evidence to support a traversal of the statement of burden other than failing to apply the correct definition of “mutually exclusive”. Examiner invites Applicant to review restriction practice in general, and further invites argument consistent with present practice in the MPEP.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 claim 2, which depends from claim 1, wherein a region excluding both ends of the developing roller in the longitudinal direction is a scooping region having a plurality of grooves formed on a surface of the developing roller,
wherein one end of the scooping region in the longitudinal direction is located outside one end of the detection region of the toner concentration sensor in the longitudinal direction,
wherein one end of the partition in the longitudinal direction is located outside the one end of the scooping region in the longitudinal direction, and
wherein one end of the developing roller in the longitudinal direction is located outside the one end of the partition 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. Kojima et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0158578, teaches an exemplary grooved surface of a developing roller
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
Prosecution Insights