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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 25 August 2026 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 and lined through has not been considered.
Specification
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.
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 the abstract is directed toward the invention of the parent application and not ‘that which is new in the art’ to which these claims pertain. 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 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 9-10 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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a step, operation or means for ‘toner to be discharged from the developing device’. Claim 1 sets forth a discharge operation “in which toner inside of the hopper is discharged”, but does not disclose discharging from the developing device. The recitation of the limitation " the toner discharged from the developing device " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While a later part of claim 9 does disclose that the developing device is controlled to discharge, the presentation of the language at issue before the disclosed discharge operation is very convoluted and confusing and will require amendment for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061).
Regarding claim 8, Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a bottle detachably provided on a main assembly and configured to accommodate toner (fig.1, #13Y-Bk; fig.4A&B: replaceable); a hopper provided on the main assembly and configured to accommodate the toner replenished from the bottle (fig.3, #51a or #54); a developing device detachably provided on the main assembly and configured to accommodate the toner replenished from the hopper and develop a latent image formed on an image bearing member (fig.2&3, #23 developing on #21); a control portion configured to control the hopper and the bottle (fig.3, #34 & #35); and an operating portion capable of manually inputting a predetermined instruction to the control portion (fig.3, #35; para.0135), wherein the control portion performs a discharging operation without involving an image forming operation (fig.7; para.0124-0137) based on the predetermined instruction input through the operating portion (para.0137), the discharge operation being an operation in which the toner inside of the hopper is discharged in a state in which toner replenishment from the bottle to the hopper is stopped (para.0124-0137: supply from bottle is done and process then removes developer from #51 and #52).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) in view of Hauser et al. (US 4,086,006).
Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) teach all of the limitations of claim 8, upon which claim 9 depends.
Regarding claim 9, Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) teach an image forming apparatus further comprising a main assembly feeding portion (not shown, but connected to fig.2 #24c and fig.1, #27 to perform the operation of para.0053) provided on the main assembly and configured to feed the toner discharged (para.0053); and a collecting container (fig.1, #27) detachably provided on the main assembly and configured to collect the toner discharged from the main assembly feeding portion (para.0053); and controls the main assembly feeding portion so as to discharge the toner from the main assembly feeding portion to the collecting container (para.0053: some control must be present to achieve this).
However, Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) fail to teach the developing device being capable of discharging toner in the developing device.
Regarding claim 9, Hauser et al. (US 4,086,006) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) further comprising a main assembly feeding portion provided on the main assembly and configured to feed the toner discharged from the developing device (fig.4, #106, #108, #110); and a collecting container detachably provided on the main assembly (fig.4, #112) and configured to collect the toner discharged from the main assembly feeding portion (col.7, ln.9-11), wherein the developing device is capable of discharging toner in the developing device (col.5, ln.58-63), and wherein the control portion controls the developing device so as to discharge the toner in the developing device during the discharging operation, and controls the main assembly feeding portion so as to discharge the toner, discharged from the developing device during the discharging operation, from the main assembly feeding portion to the collecting container (col.5, ln.58-60; col.6, ln.25-29; col.7, ln.3-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) to further purge the developer of the special color developing unit as in Hauser et al. (US 4,086,006) because it is a known means in the art to enable changing to a new color for subsequent use (col.7, ln.28-31).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) in view of Hauser et al. (US 4,086,006) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US Pub.2007/0230976).
Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) in view of Hauser et al. (US 4,086,006) teach all of the limitations of claim 9, upon which claim 10 depends.
However, Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) in view of Hauser et al. (US 4,086,006) fail to teach a detecting portion configured to detect developer in the collecting container.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi (US Pub.2007/0230976) teaches an image forming apparatus with a collecting container below a transfer belt (fig.1, #40 below #38) further comprising a detecting portion (fig.1, #80) configured to detect developer in the collecting container (para.0056), wherein the control portion prevents the image forming operation from being performed in a case in which the developer is detected by the detecting portion (para.0113(5)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the collecting container of Takami et al. (US Pub.2014/0248061) in view of Hauser et al. (US 4,086,006) by using a detecting portion and controls related thereto as in Takahashi (US Pub.2007/0230976) in order to prevent toner leakage from collecting toner at a higher than maximum level (para.0113).
Takahashi (US Pub.2007/0230976) also teaches various control adjustments to reduce the amount of waste toner being produced leading up to the container being almost full (fig.10, fig.16, and para.0113). This demonstrates that when the collecting container is near full, small amounts of toner waste may be acceptable while larger amounts should be prohibited. It is the Office’s position that one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, upon reviewing both references would easily arrive at the configuration where a discharging operation after prohibition of printing would be acceptable due to the toner produced from a discharging operation being reduced from that produced by a full printing operation and it would prevent toner leakage from the cleaning apparatus when the container is replaced. As such, the final limitation of claim 10, “capable of performing the discharging operation even in the case in which the developer is detected by the detecting portion” would be easily arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.
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/
9/29/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights