CTNF 19/176,336 CTNF 81385 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 11 April 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. While no copy was provided with this filing, the lined through reference has been herein used in an art rejection and a copy is provided along with the PTO-892 citation. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “rib formed to protrude outwardly from an outer circumference of the rotary shaft” of claims 25-26 in conjunction with the “pitch of the second blade portion is less than a pitch of the first blade portion” of claim 21, upon which 25 and 26 depend , must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to state that which is new in the art. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 18-25, proper punctuation and indentation should be used to denote what the ‘conveying screw’ includes – for example, “screw includes:” followed by a line return and similar indentation for the ‘rotary shaft’ and the first and second blade portions . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 21-28 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. Line 27 of claim 21 ends in a ‘.’, then another two ‘wherein’ clauses follow. All claims must end in a period and it is unclear if this is merely a simple typo or if all or only some of the wherein clauses are intended to be part of claim 21. For examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted with a ‘,’ at the end of line 27 instead of a ‘.’. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) and in view of Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) . Regarding claim 21, Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) teaches a developing device (fig.4(a)&(b)) comprising: a developer bearing member (fig.4, #101) which bears developer including toner and carrier (p.6, para.6) to develop an electrostatic latent image formed on an image bearing member (fig.1, #31); a developing container which accommodates the developer (fig.4, #100); a conveying screw which conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container (fig.4, #102); and an inductance sensor (p.7, para.7) which includes a detecting portion (fig.4, #110) which detects magnetic permeability of the developer accommodated in the developing container (p.7, para.7), wherein the conveying screw includes a rotary shaft portion (fig.4, #102), a first blade portion (fig.4, between #102A and #102B in direction #W1) that conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container in a conveying direction (fig.4, direction #W1), the first blade portion being spirally formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotary shaft portion (p.6, #102 described as “screw”), and a second blade portion disposed downstream of the first blade portion with respect to the conveying direction and conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container in the conveying direction (fig.4, #102B downstream in #W1 direction), the second blade portion being spirally formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotary shaft portion (p.6, #102 described as “screw”), wherein at least a portion of the first blade portion is disposed facing the detecting portion (fig.4, portion of #102 between #102A & #102B facing #110), wherein at least a portion of the second blade portion is disposed within one pitch downstream of the first blade portion from a downstream end of the detection portion with respect to the conveying direction (fig.4, #102B starts a little less than one pitch in #W1 position), and wherein a conveying amount of the second blade portion is less than a conveying amount of the first blade portion (p.3, solution 1). Regarding claim 23, Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) teaches a developing device wherein a length of the second blade portion in the conveying direction is 0.5 to 2 times a length of one pitch of the first blade portion (fig.4, #102B is the length of 2 pitches). Regarding claim 24, Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) teaches a developing device wherein the conveying screw further includes, a third blade portion disposed downstream of the second blade portion with respect to the conveying direction and conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container in the conveying direction (fig.4, see portion of #102 downstream in #W1 direction from #102B), the third blade portion being spirally formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotary shaft portion, and wherein a configuration of the third blade portion is substantially similar to that of the first blade portion (fig.4, see downstream #102 compared to #102 between #102A & #102B). However, Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) fails to teach a pitch of the second blade portion being a variation. Regarding claim 21, Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) teach a developing device (fig.2&3, #20) comprising: a developer bearing member (fig.2&3, #40) which bears developer including toner and carrier (para.0042) to develop an electrostatic latent image formed on an image bearing member (fig.1, #16); a developing container which accommodates the developer (fig.2&5, #50); a conveying screw which conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container (fig.3,5,12&13, #56); and an portion where a slowing of the developer accommodated in the developing container is desired (fig.3,5,12&13, #60), wherein the conveying screw includes a rotary shaft portion (fig.3,5,12&13, #56a), a first blade portion that conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container in a conveying direction (fig.3,5,12&13, #56b conveying toward the right), the first blade portion being spirally formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotary shaft portion (para.0044), and a second blade portion disposed downstream of the first blade portion with respect to the conveying direction and conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container in the conveying direction (fig.5&12, portion of #64), the second blade portion being spirally formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotary shaft portion, wherein at least a portion of the first blade portion is disposed facing the slowing portion (fig.5&12, a portion of #56b starting into #64 is maintained at the beginning of #62/#60), and wherein a pitch of the second blade portion is less than a pitch of the first blade portion (fig.5&12, pitch of downstream portion of #64 smaller than pitch of upstream #56b). Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) also teach that maintaining a blade pitch and increasing the shaft diameter is an equivalent means to achieve the same effect (fig.13; para.0080&0084). Regarding claim 22, Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) teach a developing device wherein the pitch of the second blade portion is equal to or less than a half of the pitch of the first blade portion (fig.5&12, #P1 & #P2 are both less than half of #P0). Regarding claim 23, Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) teach a developing device wherein a length of the second blade portion in the conveying direction is 0.5 to 2 times a length of one pitch of the first blade portion (fig.12, the portion of #64 with #P2 appears to be less than two #P0s; para.0081). Regarding claim 24, Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) teach a developing device wherein the conveying screw further includes, a third blade portion disposed downstream of the second blade portion with respect to the conveying direction (fig.5&12, #56b in the vicinity of #48) and conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container in the conveying direction (see fig.5&12), the third blade portion being spirally formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotary shaft portion (para.0044), and wherein a pitch of the second blade portion is less than a pitch of the third blade portion (fig.5&12, pitch of #56b near #48 is ~ #P0 and #P1 and #P2 are less than that). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) by changing the blade pitch instead of the shaft diameter as in Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) because the two are known functional equivalents and have substantially the same function in substantially the same way to reach substantially the same result (para.0080&0084). However, Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) also fails to teach the permeability sensor being inductance based and is generally low on details relating thereto and thus fails to discuss the sensitivity. Regarding claim 21, Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) teach a developing device (fig.2, #20) comprising: a developer bearing member which bears developer including toner and carrier to develop an electrostatic latent image formed on an image bearing member (fig.2, #23/#24 to develop on #10); a developing container which accommodates the developer (fig.2, #21); a conveying screw which conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container (fig.2&3, #28); and an inductance sensor (fig.2-3,9&12, #40) which includes a detecting portion (fig.9-13, #41) which detects magnetic permeability of the developer accommodated in the developing container (p.2, para.0006), wherein in a state the inductance sensor is not attached to the developing container and a predetermined magnetic material is disposed at a position in contact with the detection portion, an output value when the detecting portion detects magnetic permeability of the predetermined magnetic material is A, and in a state the inductance sensor is not attached to the developing container and the predetermined magnetic material is disposed 1mm away from the detection portion in a vertical direction passing through the detection portion, an output value when the detecting portion detects magnetic permeability of the predetermined magnetic material is B, with B/A ≥ 0.1 being satisfied (p.11, second full paragraph to fifth: the sensitivity range is not set forth in the same terms, but the wording and constraints for sufficient sensitivity out to 1 mm appears to indicate that it would meet the parameters of the claim), wherein the conveying screw includes a rotary shaft portion, a blade portion that conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container in a conveying direction, the first blade portion being spirally formed on an outer circumferential surface of the rotary shaft portion (see fig.3&13, #28). Regarding claim 27, Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) teach a developing device wherein the inductance sensor further includes an output portion that outputs a pulse signal in accordance with the magnetic permeability detected by the detection portion (p.7, fifth full paragraph& p.8, top paragraph). Regarding claim 28, Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) teach a developing device wherein the inductance sensor further includes a circuit board, and wherein the detection portion is an area on the circuit board, on which a pattern of a coil is formed (see fig. 6&12; p.7, eight full paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the undefined magnetic permeability sensor of Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) with the planar magnetic inductance coil of Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) because it improves detector sensitivity and reduces the size (p.3; unlabeled para.0008) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) and in view of Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Sako et al. (US Pub.2020/0033759) . Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) and in view of Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) teach all of the limitations of claim 21, upon which claims 25 and 26 depend. However, Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) and in view of Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11-143209) fail to teach a rib on the conveying screw. Regarding claim 25, Sako et al. (US Pub.2020/0033759) teach a developing device (fig.3) comprising: a developer bearing member which bears developer (fig.3, #141) including toner and carrier (para.0040) to develop an electrostatic latent image formed on an image bearing member (fig.3, #11); a developing container which accommodates the developer (fig.3, #140 holds #4); a conveying screw which conveys the developer accommodated in the developing container (fig.3&9, #143); and an inductance sensor which includes a detecting portion which detects magnetic permeability of the developer accommodated in the developing container (fig.3&9, #154; para.0070), wherein the conveying screw includes: a rotary shaft (fig.6B&C&9, #143a) with a first conveying portion which is disposed opposite the detection portion (see fig.4, #143 has conveying portion with rib #160 facing #154); a blade which is spirally formed on an outer circumference of the rotary shaft (fig.6B&C, #143b) wherein the conveying screw further includes a rib formed to protrude outwardly from an outer circumference of the first rotary shaft portion (fig.6B&C&9, #160), and wherein the rib is disposed in the conveying direction to face to the detection portion (fig.4&9, #160 facing #154). Regarding claim 26, Sako et al. (US Pub.2020/0033759) teach a developing device wherein the rib is provided with a magnet (fig.9, #170; para.0075). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first conveying portion of Shigenaga (JP Pub.2008-209592) in view of Hatakeyama et al. (US Pub.2008/0170885) and in view of Miyasaka et al. (JP Pub.11- 143209) to further have the rib and magnet of Sako et al. (US Pub.2020/0033759) in order to use a magnetic developer brush to reduce the dead space between the conveying screw and the wall/sensor (para.0107) to further improve the detection accuracy (para.0007). 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/ 5/14/2026 /Arlene Heredia Ocasio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 2 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 3 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 4 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 5 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 6 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 7 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 8 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 9 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 10 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 11 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 12 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 13 Art Unit: 2852 Application/Control Number: 19/176,336 Page 14 Art Unit: 2852
Prosecution Insights