Claim Objections
Claims are similar to the claims of 17/484,297. Please not the following below. Upon an allowance, please note the following.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP3906039B2 in view of MEYER et. al. (US 6,810,221 B1; hereinafter MEYER).
Publication ‘039B2 teaches regarding claim 1, a cartridge 1 comprising: [a developing roller] rotatable about a second axis extending in a first direction; a memory 8; and a terminal 8 electrically connected to the memory 8, wherein the memory 8 and the terminal 8 are positioned at one end portion (shown in figure 1, left end) of the cartridge 1 in the first direction.
Regarding claim 4, the cartridge is detachably attachable to an image forming apparatus abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the terminal 8 is in contact with a main-body terminal 8 of the image forming apparatus in a case where the cartridge 1 is attached to the image forming apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, the cartridge further comprising: a frame 2, wherein the terminal 8 is positioned at an outer surface of the frame 2.
Regarding claim 9, the memory 8 is positioned at the outer surface of the frame 2.
Publication ‘039B2 does not depict a process cartridge and ‘039B2 does not teach a developing roller that is positioned between the terminal of the memory and the photoconductive drum in a second direction crossing the first direction in a state where the developing cartridge is attached to the drum cartridge.
MEYER teaches regarding claim 1, a developing cartridge 12 being detachably attachable to a drum cartridge 20 including a photoconductive drum 30 (figure 1-2; column 2, lines 2-38).
Regarding claim 2, the cartridge further comprising: a photoconductive drum rotatable about a first axis extending in the first direction.
Regarding claim 7, the cartridge further comprising a supplying roller (figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, the cartridge further comprising: a toner hopper configured to accommodate toner, wherein the toner hopper is positioned between the developing roller [and the terminal in a second direction].
Regarding claims 3 and 6-7, the examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art at the time of the filing of invention, and such as taught by Aoki et al. (EP1701224A1; figures 7-8; paragraphs [0042-0045] discuss the use of a memory with a terminal and how it is connected to the main body terminal), to configure a memory with a terminal so as to ensure contact between an attached developing cartridge and the main unit of an image forming apparatus or a drum cartridge.
Regarding claim 3, a first distance between the developing roller 38 and the terminal in the second direction is larger than a second distance between the developing roller and the photoconductive drum in the second direction in a state where the developing cartridge is attached to the drum cartridge (the developing roller and the drum are in contact and thus first distance is larger).
Regarding claim 6, the image forming apparatus (figure 1) includes a cover 7 movable between an open state and a closed state, and wherein the main-body terminal is positioned at the cover 7 of the image forming apparatus 1 (shown in figure 1-2).
Publication ‘039B2, MEYER, and Aoki teach image forming devices that utilizes process or developer cartridges.
The rationale for combining the teachings of ‘039B2, MEYER, and Aoki is to improve similar devices in the same way by use of known technique to allow the exchange between memory and terminal regardless of positional relationship.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of this invention to use the teaching of MEYER (or Aoki et al.) with the teaching of ‘039B2 to obtain an image forming apparatus that prolongs the use of image forming components while allowing for connection between the cartridge and main body of the image forming apparatus.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANA GRAINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-2135. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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 on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANA GRAINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
QG
Prosecution Insights