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 .
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.
Claims 11-18 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.
In claim 11, on line 2, “second detection control module” implies that there is another, first, detection control module”, but no other detection control module is contained in the language of claim 11, or in the language of claim 1, upon which claim 11 depends.
In claim 12, on line 2, “second detection control module” implies that there is another, first, detection control module”, but no other detection control module is contained in the language of claim 12, or in the language of claims 1 and 11, upon which claim 12 indirectly or directly depends.
In claim 12, on lines 3 and 6-7, “second detection unit” implies that there is another, first, detection unit but no other detection unit is contained in the language of claim 12, or in the language of claims 1 and 11, upon which claim 12 indirectly or directly depends.
In claim 12, on line 6, “second control unit” implies that there is another, first, control unit but no other control unit is contained in the language of claim 12, or in the language of claims 1 and 11, upon which claim 12 indirectly or directly depends.
In claim 13, on lines 2-3, “third detection control module” implies that there are other, first and second, detection control modules, but no other detection control modules are contained in the language of claim 13, or in the language of claim 1, upon which claim 13 depends.
In claim 14, on lines 2 and 7, “third detection control module” implies that there are other, first and second, detection control modules, but no other detection control modules are contained in the language of claim 14, or in the language of claims 1 and 13, upon which claim 14 indirectly or directly depends.
In claim 14, on lines 2, 5-6, 7, 10 and 11, “third detection unit” implies that there are other, first and second, detection units, but no other detection units are contained in the language of claim 14, or in the language of claims 1 and 13, upon which claim 14 indirectly or directly depends.
In claim 15, line 5, “the discharge component” lacks proper antecedent basis, where, “the discharge component” could be changed to “a discharge component”.
In claim 16, line 6, “the first determination unit” lacks proper antecedent basis, where it could be changed to “a first determination unit”.
In claim 17, on lines 2 and 5, “second power control unit” implies that there is another, first, power control unit, but no other power control unit is contained in the language of claim 17, or in the language of claim 15, upon which claim 17 depends.
In claim 17, on line 6, “second determination unit” implies that there is another, first, determination unit, but no other determination unit is contained in the language of claim 17, or in the language of claim 15, upon which claim 17 depends.
In claim 18, lines 2 and 9, “second state detection unit” implies that there is another, first, state detection unit, but no other state detection unit, is contained in the language of claim 18, or in the language of claims 15 and 17, upon which claim 18 indirectly or directly depends.
In claim 18, lines 4 and 11, “third determination unit” implies that there are other, first and second, determination units, but no other state detection units, are contained in the language of claim 18, or in the language of claims 15 and 17, upon which claim 18 indirectly or directly depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 115755555) in view of Okubo (US 2016/0334732).
Yu et al. (…555) disclose a process cartridge, detachably mounted on an image-forming apparatus ([0075]; [0082]-[0087]), comprising: a cartridge body (figures 3-5, 7 and 8); a photosensitive drum (25), rotatably disposed on the cartridge body; and a chip (23), configured to be disposed on the cartridge body, wherein the chip includes a power supply contact (231) configured to receive power provided by the image-forming apparatus ([0061]-[0087]), wherein: the power supply contact is configured to be electrically connected to an imaging component ([0061]-[0087]) [see Applicant’s claim 1]. The process cartridge further includes a first electrical connection part, wherein the first electrical connection part is configured to electrically connect the power supply contact with the imaging component ([0061]-[0087]) [see Applicant’s claim 2]. The first electrical connection part is disposed on the chip and electrically connected to the power supply contact; and the imaging component is capable of being detachably connected to the first electrical connection part ([0061]-[0087]; and figure 1) [see claim 3]. The process cartridge further includes a second electrical connection part, wherein the second electrical connection part is configured to electrically connect the power supply contact with the image-forming apparatus ([0061]-[0087]; and figure 1) [see Applicant’s claim 4]. The second electrical connection part is disposed on the chip and electrically connected to the power supply contact ([0061]-[0087]; and figure 1), where the placement of the first electrical connection part and the second electrical connection part is considered to be an engineering decision [see Applicant’s claim 5]. The photosensitive drum (25) includes a steel axle ([0077[); wherein it is considered to be an engineering decision that the steel axle can be configured to electrically connect the power supply contact with another imaging component [see Applicant’s claim 6]. A first end of the steel axle is electrically connected to the power supply contact through a first conductive part ([0077]), where it is considered an engineering decision that a second end of the steel axle can be electrically connected to another imaging component through a second conductive part [see Applicant’s claim 7]. The process cartridge includes a voltage regulating circuit (11), and the power supply contact is capable of being electrically connected to the imaging component through the voltage regulating circuit ([0061]-[0087]) [see Applicant’s claim 8]. It is considered to be an engineering decision that the power supply contact can be capable of being electrically connected to the imaging component through the voltage regulating circuit and the photosensitive drum [see Applicant’s claim 9]. An image-forming apparatus, comprising: an image-forming unit, configured to perform an image-forming operation ([0075]; and [0082]-[0087]); and a power supply pin, configured to supply power to a chip (23) disposed on a cartridge body of a process cartridge when the process cartridge is installed in the image-forming apparatus ([0061]-[0087]), and further configured to supply power to an imaging component ([0061]-[0087]) [see Applicant’s claim 15]. However, Yu et al. (…555) do not disclose the image component including the claimed discharge component. Okubo (…732) discloses an image forming unit including a photosensitive drum (1a) and a discharge component (25) that is configured to eliminate residual charge on the photosensitive drum ([0020]-[0021]; [0025]; and figures 1 and 2) [see Applicant’s claims 1 and 15]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed discharge component, since as disclosed by Okubo (…732), it is well known in the art to have a discharge component as an imaging component.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US CN 115755555) in view of Okubo (US 2016/0334732) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Funaba (US 2022/0019171).
Yu et al. (…555) in view of Okubo (…732) disclose the features mentioned previously, but do not disclose the claimed detection control module. Funaba (…171) discloses a detection control module, wherein the detection control module includes: a detection unit, connected to the power supply contact and configured to detect whether the power supply contact receives the power from the image-forming apparatus; and a control unit, configured to obtain a detection result of the detection unit; when the detection result is that the power supply contact receives the power, control an imaging component to be in an ON state; and when the detection result is that the power supply contact does not receive the power, control the imaging component to be in an OFF state ([0046]; and [0061]-[0062]) [see Applicant’s claim 10]. A detection control module, wherein the detection control module is configured to generate a level signal correspondingly according to a status of the power obtained by the power supply contact ([0046]; and [0061]-[0062]) [see Applicant’s claim 11]. The detection control module includes: a detection unit, connected to the power supply contact and configured to detect whether the power supply contact receives the power; a signal trigger, configured to generate a level signal; and a control unit, configured to obtain a detection result of the detection unit; when the detection result is that the power supply contact receives the power, control the signal trigger to generate a first-level signal; and when the detection result is that the power supply contact does not receive the power, control the signal trigger to generate a second-level signal, wherein the first-level signal is different from the second-level signal ([0046]; and [0061]-[0062]) [see Applicant’s claim 12]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed detection control module, since as disclosed by Funaba (…171), such a detection control module is well known in the art to detect power and control components.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (CN 115755555) in view of Okubo (US 2016/0334732) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0103781).
Yu et al. (…555) in view of Okubo (…732) disclose the features mentioned previously, but do not disclose the claimed state detection unit, power control unit, determination unit and signal detection unit. Tanaka et al. (…781) disclose an image-forming apparatus including: a state detection unit, configured to be electrically connected to an imaging component and detect an ON or OFF state of the imaging component; a power control unit, configured to control connection and disconnection of the power provided by the image-forming apparatus to a chip; and a determination unit, configured to determine whether a process cartridge satisfies expectation according to a detection result of the first state detection unit when the power is disconnected by the first power control unit ([0008]-[0013]; and [0050]-[0085]) [see Applicant’s claim 16]. The image-forming apparatus, further including: a power control unit, configured to control connection and disconnection of the power provided by the image-forming apparatus to the chip; a signal detection unit, configured to obtain a signal detection result according to a control result of the second power control unit on the power; and a second determination unit, configured to determine whether the process cartridge satisfies expectation according to the signal detection result ([0008]-[0013]; and [0050]-[0085]) [see Applicant’s claim 17]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed state detection unit, power control unit, determination unit and signal detection unit, as disclosed by Tanaka et al. (…781), since such is well known in the art.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA BRASE whose telephone number is (571)272-2131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/SANDRA BRASE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights