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 .
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.
Specification
ABSTRACT - The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it merely consists of a single run-on sentence without regard for proper grammatical form. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
TITLE - 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.
“JUMBO CASE” - The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a guide portion in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
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.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: particular operation or condition during which a time acquired by dividing 360 degrees by an angular velocity of the rotary is measured.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,565,973 to Fujishiro et al. in view of KR 2008-0072366 to Hwang.
Regarding claim 1, Fujishiro teaches an image forming apparatus comprising:
a photosensitive drum (1);
a rotary (300) rotatable about a rotation axis extending in an axial direction;
a toner cartridge (314) which is supported by the rotary and includes a discharge opening (327) from which toner is discharged; and
a developing unit (302) which is supported by the rotary and configured to develop an electrostatic latent image formed on the photosensitive drum at a development position, wherein the developing unit has a receiving opening (311) configured to receive the toner discharged from the discharge opening, an accommodating chamber (312) configured to accommodate the toner received from the receiving opening, a developing roller (303) configured to carry the toner, a supply roller (306) configured to rotate about a roller axis extending along the axial direction to supply the toner accommodated in the accommodating chamber to the developing roller.
Fujishiro appears silent about the developing unit including a guide portion.
Hwang discloses an image forming apparatus (Fig.1) comprising a photosensitive drum (22); a developer storage chamber (27) including a discharge opening (29) from which toner is discharged; and a developing unit (A) configured to develop an electrostatic latent image formed on the photosensitive drum at a development position, wherein the developing unit has a receiving opening (29) configured to receive the toner discharged from the discharge opening, an accommodating chamber (28) configured to accommodate the toner received from the receiving opening, a developing roller (31) configured to carry the toner, a supply roller (33) configured to rotate about a roller axis extending along the axial direction to supply the toner accommodated in the accommodating chamber to the developing roller, and a guide portion (36) configured to guide the toner, which moves in a direction intersecting the axial direction in accordance with the rotation of the supply roller, away from the receiving opening in the axial direction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the developing unit of Fujishiro to further comprise a guide portion, and the guide portion is configured to guide the toner, which moves in a direction intersecting the axial direction in accordance with the rotation of the supply roller, away from the receiving opening in the axial direction, as suggested by Hwang’s invention, for at least the purpose of ensuring a density of developer supplied to the developer roller.
The modified image forming apparatus further renders obvious:
(claim 2) The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the guide portion is a rib which protrudes, in an area between an inner surface of the accommodating chamber of the developing unit and the supply roller, from the inner surface of the frame toward the supply roller and extends in the direction intersecting the axial direction (Hwang: Figs. 2 & 3).
(claim 3) The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the rib has a first rib end which is an end on an upstream side in a rotation direction of the supply roller and a second rib end which is an end on a downstream side, and the toner moves from the second rib end toward the first rib end in accordance with the rotation of the supply roller (Hwang: Figs. 2-4).
(claim 4) The image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, in a cross-section orthogonal to the axial direction, the shortest distance between an outer circumference of the supply roller and the first rib end is longer than the shortest distance between the outer circumference of the supply roller and the second rib end (Hwang: Fig.4).
(claim 7) The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the inner surface includes a supply roller opposing portion having a shape extending along an outer circumference surface of the supply roller in a cross-section orthogonal to the axial direction, and the guide portion is disposed in the supply roller opposing portion (Hwang: Fig.2).
(claim 8) The image forming apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the guide portion is disposed from a surface on which the receiving opening is provided to the supply roller opposing portion in the developing unit (Hwang: Fig.2).
(claim 9) The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the supply roller has a foam body configured to absorb the toner housed in the accommodating chamber on an outer circumference, the supply roller is configured to rotate while being brought into contact with the developing roller such that a nip portion is formed between the developing roller and the supply roller, and the toner absorbed by the foam body on a downstream side of the nip portion in the rotation direction of the supply roller is discharged from the foam body on an upstream side of the nip portion to move the toner in a direction intersecting the axial direction (Fujishiro: col.6 lines 30-33).
(claim 10) Fujishiro in view of Hwang teaches an image forming apparatus according to claim 3. Although the combination does not explicitly teach wherein, in a state in which the developing unit is at the development position, the second rib end is located below the first rib end, the relative positioning of the parts is deemed an obvious matter of design choice would not have modified the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04).
(claim 11) The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the guide portion has a portion located below the roller axis of the supply roller in a state in which the developing unit is at the development position, and a portion located above the roller axis in the state in which the developing unit is at the development position (Fujishiro:Fig.2A in view of Hwang:Fig.4; the guide portion extends along greater than a quarter circumference of the supply roller).
(claim 12) The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the developing unit has a developing blade (Fujishiro:308) regulating a thickness of toner supplied to the developing roller, and, in a state in which the developing unit is at the development position, the developing blade is located below the developing roller (Fujishiro: Fig.2A).
(claim 13) The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein, when the developing unit is at an attachment and detachment position that is a position different from the development position, the toner cartridge is attachable to and detachable from the developing unit (Hwang: Fig.14).
(claim 14) The image forming apparatus according to claim 13, wherein a positional relation between the supply roller and the rib is different, in at least one of a vertical direction and a horizontal direction, between a case in which the developing unit is at the development position and a case in which the developing unit is at the attachment and detachment position (du to rotation of the rotary).
(claim 15) Fujishiro in view of Hwang teach an image forming apparatus according to claim 2, but appear silent about a time in which the supply roller is rotating during execution of the image forming operation. Hwang discloses the rotational speed of the supply roller as a result effective variable impacting how smoothly developer is supplied to the developing roller and, hence, to the photosensitive member; if the developer is not smoothly supplied to the photosensitive member, image quality is deteriorated. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover the optimum or workable range of a time in which the supply roller is rotating during execution of the image forming operation, as a recognized result-effective variable, by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). As a result, its relative value compared to a time acquired by dividing 360 degrees by an angular velocity of the rotary could also be optimized.
Regarding claim 5, Fujishiro in view of Hwang teach an image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the guide portion includes a rib but do not explicitly suggest the guide portion including a plurality of the ribs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the guide portion to include a plurality of the ribs aligned along the axial direction, as a mere duplication of parts having a similar expected result of guiding the developer towards the supply position.
Regarding claim 6, Fujishiro in view of Hwang teach an image forming apparatus according to claim 5, but appear silent about first and second receiving openings, as claimed.
Fujishiro further teaches the configuration of the disclosed developing unit implements a miniature revolver where toner is circulated in the axial direction through circulating portion 312 and the hopper 311 wherein supply of developer to the supply roller 306 is controlled by adequately selecting the amounts of toner to be conveyed by the screws 309 and 310. Fujishiro also teaches using a plurality of guides (333, Fig.7B) provided on the inner periphery of a developer containing portion to guide developer in a particular direction, and positioned such that their distance sequentially decreases from the upstream side toward the downstream side in the direction in which the toner moves.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fujishiro such that in a case where one side of the developing unit with respect to a central portion in the axial direction is defined as a first portion and the other portion is defined as a second portion, a first receiving opening is provided in the first portion, and a second receiving opening is provided in the second portion, and the guide portion includes a first rib that is disposed in the first portion and a second rib that is disposed in the second portion, for at least the purpose of effectively directing the developer towards the effective diameter portions of the supply roller and the developer roller in the axial direction, thus ensuring an adequate amount of developer is available for image formation.
Double Patenting
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 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/198,436 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the main feature not recited in claim 1 of the reference application is “a photosensitive drum”, which would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in the electrophotographic arts, to which both inventions pertain.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30.
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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights