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
Applicant’s election of Invention A and Species A1 in the reply filed on 6/11/26 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 states belief, and also alleges that Examiner identified no fields in the Requirement as examples of burden. Applicant has thus failed to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement with respect to the statement of burden: “the mutually exclusive characteristics require a different field of search”. Simply ignoring the statement of burden fails to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors. The mutually exclusive characteristics are the fields of search, which are different in scope. As a complete reply, 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), Examiner construes Applicant’s failure to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement with respect to the statement of burden as an admission that such is free of error.
Moreover, because Applicant has failed to distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, Applicant has failed to preserve the right to petition from the requirement for restriction. MPEP 818.01(c).
Claims 5 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/11/26.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokudome et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 201/0075248.
Regarding independent claim 1, an image forming apparatus comprising:
a photoreceptor (1); and
a panel member (fig 1, the housing encasing the image forming apparatus which includes all the components inside, noting that panels can comprise subpanels integrated together at various inclinations) that faces the photoreceptor, the panel member including a plurality of light-emitting elements (the plurality of elements of the laser scanner 4 which output, reflect, and refract the light output from the laser diode, noting that every point along the wavefront of the light is a new source of emission by Huygens’ principle) and a static eliminator (8) that eliminates static, wherein:
the plurality of light-emitting elements are included in an image exposure unit that exposes the photoreceptor to form an image (¶ 34), and
the static eliminator has a larger area for exposing the photoreceptor than the image exposure unit does (¶ 52, 117, fig 4, showing that the area of the charge eliminating device extends past that of the image forming region exposed by the image exposure unit along a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, wherein the static eliminator has a longer length in an axial direction along a rotation axis of the photoreceptor than the image exposure unit does (¶ 52, 117, fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2, wherein the static eliminator and the image exposure unit are disposed adjacent to each other in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction (fig 1, showing their adjacent disposition regardless of any intervening elements).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokudome et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 201/0075248, in view of well known prior art.
Regarding independent claim 1, Examiner assumes arguendo, without conceding, that the limitations “the panel member including a plurality of light-emitting elements … wherein:
the plurality of light-emitting elements are included in an image exposure unit that exposes the photoreceptor to form an image”;
require a plurality of actually emitting sources of light, rather than mere emitting sources as points along the wavefront.
Examiner takes official notice that LED arrays are known equivalents in the art of electrophotography for the purpose of exposing photoconductors to form latent images. See, e.g., Takayama et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0195025, ¶ 90; and, Nakashima, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0277262, ¶ 30. See MPEP 2144.03(C) for guidance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide an led array instead of the laser exposure unit of Tokudome. Such would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143 (I)(B). The prior art teaches the equivalence of these two elements for the purpose of exposing photoconductors to form latent images. As such, substituting one for the other leads to only predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
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 4, which depends from claim 3, wherein the panel member is bent such that a surface on which the image exposure unit is provided intersects with a surface on which the static eliminator is provided.
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 following teach the relative extents of static elimination areas and exposing areas on photoconductors: Kanda, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2020/0183318; Oi, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0341412; Ohi et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0336729; Oda et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0129254; Miyaji, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0096452; Kim et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0158570; Tomiie et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2006/0188288; Nagamori et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,655,188; Shimizu, U.S. Pat. No. 5,099,279; Horiuchi et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,701,044; and, Kotah et al., U.S. Pat. No. 4,384,785. Kanda further teaches the issues regarding overlapping charging regions and static elimination regions, and provide baffling and waveguides to overcome them.
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