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.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 15 recite the limitations “the first side of the first light emitting chip”, “the second side of the first light emitting”, “the first side of the second light emitting chip”, and “the second side of the second light emitting” (claim 10 only). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim, as no first or second sides of either the first or second light emitting chips have been set forth. Rather, the claims set forth “wherein each of the first light emitting chip and the second light emitting chip includes a first long side and a second long side”. It is thus unclear whether these are the same sides, or different sides.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner surmises that the above limitations refer to the recited first long side and a second long side of each of the first light emitting chip and the second light emitting chips.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein a distance from the first side of the second light emitting chip to the imaginary line is shorter than a distance from the second side of the light emitting chip to the imaginary line;” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear which of the two light emitting chips the underlined limitation refers to.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner surmises that commensurate with claim 10, which claim 15 only adds to, the above limitation ought to read --wherein a distance from the first side of the second light emitting chip to the imaginary line is shorter than a distance from the second side of the second light emitting chip to the imaginary line--.
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.
Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, JP 2010-201768, in view of Park, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0109398, and Sakurai, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2008/0175605.
The thrust of the following rejection is the same as the thrust of the previous rejections of the claims in parent U.S. App. No. 17/673,527. With respect to the last set of independent claims in the parent, dated 3/14/25, the present independent claims only
add:
wherein a distance from the first side of the first light emitting chip to the imaginary line is shorter than a distance from the second side of the first light emitting chip to the imaginary line, and
wherein a distance from the first side of the second light emitting chip to the imaginary line is shorter than a distance from the second side of the second light emitting chip to the imaginary line; and,
omit:
the lens array; and,
parallel sides in the independent claims, adding them back in present claims 11-13.
Regarding independent claims 10 and 15, Ono teaches an image forming apparatus comprising:
a photosensitive drum (12);
a charger (14) configured to uniformly charge a surface of the photosensitive drum;
an exposure head (14) configured to expose the surface of the [rotating (fig 1)] photosensitive drum with light in accordance with an image signal to form an electrostatic latent image, the exposure head including:
a plurality of light emitting element array chips (63) arranged in a staggered manner around an imaginary line along a rotation axis of the photosensitive drum (the imaginary line around which C1, C2, C3, …, are arranged in a staggered manner, figs 2, 3, and “They are arranged in a staggered pattern in two rows in the scanning direction”);
a circuit board (62) on which the plurality of light emitting element array chips are mounted (“ As shown in FIG. 3A, the light emitting unit 63 includes 60 light emitting chips C (C1 to C60) as an example of a plurality of light emitting element chips on a circuit board 62 as an example of a mounting member. ”, and “Then, the temperatures of the light emitting chips C1 to C60 on which the transfer thyristors T1 to T256 and the light emitting thyristors L1 to L256 that have been turned on rise due to heat generation, and accordingly the circuit board 62 on which the light emitting chips C1 to C60 are mounted.”), the plurality of light emitting element array chips including a first light emitting element array chip (an odd one of C1 – C60, for example C1, on one side of the imaginary line) and a second light emitting element array chip (an even one of C1-C60, for example C2, on another side of the imaginary line) arranged in a position different from a position of the first light emitting element array chip (fig 3), each of the first light emitting element array chip and the second light emitting element array chip including:
a light emitting area (some “area” in the plurality of light emitting element array chips that includes some “portion” that emits light) including a plurality of light emitting portions (fig 4);
wherein each of the first light emitting chip and the second light emitting chip includes a first long side and a second long side (fig 3);
wherein a distance from the first side of the first light emitting chip to the imaginary line is shorter than a distance from the second side of the first light emitting chip to the imaginary line (fig 3), and
wherein a distance from the first side of the second light emitting chip to the imaginary line is shorter than a distance from the second side of the second light emitting chip to the imaginary line (fig 3);
a developing device (15) configured to develop the electrostatic latent image with toner to form a toner image;
a transfer device (18) configured to transfer the toner image onto a recording medium; and
a fixing device (19) configured to apply heat and pressure to the toner image to fix the toner image to the recording medium.
Ono is silent with respect to a sealing material for covering a light emitting face of the light emitting area and a side face of the light emitting area; and, wherein, as viewed from a side of the light emitting face, a sealing area applied with the sealing material includes the light emitting area.
Park teaches an exposure head (100) to form an electrostatic image (¶ 5). Park further teaches sealing the exposure head to prevent malfunction due to dust scattering in the image forming apparatus (¶ 60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide a sealing material for covering a light emitting face of the light emitting area and a side face of the light emitting area; and, wherein, as viewed from a side of the light emitting face, a sealing area applied with the sealing material includes the light emitting area. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to prevent malfunction due to dust scattering in the image forming apparatus.
The combination of Ono and Park further teaches:
wherein a first distance from a first side to one long side of the sealing area which is proximate to the first side is shorter than a second distance from a second side to another long side of the sealing area which is proximate to the second side, and
wherein a third distance from the first side to one long side of the light emitting area which is proximate to the first side is shorter than a fourth distance from the second side to another long side of the light emitting area which is proximate to the second side.
The above limitations are always met because one if free to choose the starting and ending points for the above distances on their respective sides so that these limitations are met, the claims failing to specify where the starting and ending points for the above distances are on their respective sides. For example, chose the starting and ending points for the “first distance” such that the first distance is very small, and similarly choosing the starting and ending points for the “second distance” such that the second distance is larger than the first. Then, chose the starting and ending points for the “third distance” such that the third distance is very small, and similarly choosing the starting and ending points for the “fourth distance” such that the fourth distance is larger than the third.
The combination of Ono and Park fails to teach:
wherein a distance from the one long side of the sealing area to the one long side of the light emitting area is shorter than a distance from the another long side of the sealing area to the another long side of the light emitting area.
Sakurai teaches (e.g. figs 19 and 21) offsetting a light emitting area (the area around 1032) within a sealing area (the area under 1030) in order to provide a single concave portion (1035) with absorbent (1039) in it. Sakurai provides absorbent within the sealing area to suppress deterioration due to moisture or oxygen (¶ 13-14, 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to provide wherein a distance from the one long side of the sealing area to the one long side of the light emitting area is shorter than a distance from the another long side of the sealing area to the another long side of the light emitting area. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have done so to provide absorbent within the sealing area to suppress deterioration due to moisture or oxygen with only a single concave portion for the absorbent.
The thrust of the rejection of the present independent claims remains the same as the thrust of the rejections of the independent claims in the parent application. Would the present additional limitations were added in the parent application, a final rejection over the art and grounds of record would be appropriate. Applicants make no attempt to distinguish the present claims from the claims in the parent application. The additional limitations are clearly obvious as anticipation, here by Ono, is the epitome of obviousness. It would have been obvious to remove unwanted elements if their functions are not retained. The present and former claims are not patentably distinct. A mere lack of care with respect to antecedent basis issues does impact the thrust of the rejections.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 10, the combination of Ono and Park further teaches wherein the first distance is shorter than a fifth distance from a third side which is one of two short sides of each of the plurality of light emitting element array chips to one short side of the sealing area which is parallel to and proximate to the third side, and
wherein the first distance is shorter than a sixth distance from a fourth side which is another one of the two short sides of each of the plurality of light emitting element array chips to another short side of the sealing area which is parallel to and proximate to the fourth side;
again, because one is free to choose the starting and ending points of the first distance so that it is as small as needed to read on these limitations. Ono teaches parallel sides of rectangles for the respective light emitting areas, and Park and Sukurai teach sides of the sealing areas parallel to the light emitting areas.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 11, the combination of Ono and Park further teaches wherein the third distance is shorter than a seventh distance from the third side to one short side of the light emitting area which is parallel to and proximate to the third side, and
wherein the third distance is shorter than an eighth distance from the fourth side to another short side of the light emitting area which is parallel to and proximate to the fourth side;
again, because one is free to choose the starting and ending points of the third distance so that it is as small as needed to read on these limitations. Ono teaches parallel sides of rectangles for the respective light emitting areas, and Park and Sukurai teach sides of the sealing areas parallel to the light emitting areas.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 10, the combination of Ono and Park further teaches wherein the third distance is shorter than a seventh distance from a third side which is one of two short sides of each of the plurality of light emitting element array chips to one short side of the light emitting area which is parallel to and proximate to the third side, and
wherein the third distance is shorter than an eighth distance from a fourth side which is another one of the two short sides of each of the plurality of light emitting element array chips to another short side of the light emitting area which is parallel to and proximate to the fourth side;
again, because one is free to choose the starting and ending points of the third distance so that it is as small as needed to read on these limitations. Ono teaches parallel sides of rectangles for the respective light emitting areas, and Park and Sukurai teach sides of the sealing areas parallel to the light emitting areas.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono, JP 2010-201768, in view of Park, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2015/0109398, and Sakurai, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2008/0175605, and further in view of Nomura, U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0172665.
The combination of Ono, Park, and Sakurai is silent with respect to wherein each of the plurality of light emitting portions of the light emitting area is a top emission-type LED.
Nomura teaches an exposure head (29) with a plurality of light emitting portions (2951) to expose a latent image on a photosensitive drum (¶ 4). Nomura teaches that the plurality of light emitting portions are bottom emission-type organic EL elements (¶ 85). However, Nomura teaches that top emission-type organic EL element or an LED is entirely equivalent to bottom emission type organic ELs for the purpose of exposing photosensitive drums (¶ 85).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143 (I)(B). Here, the combination of Ono and Park differ from the claim through a top emission-type LED. Nomura teaches the equivalence of such top emission-type LED for the purpose of exposing latent images on a photosensitive drum. The simple substitution of one known element for another would have thus yielded predictable results. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide wherein each of the plurality of light emitting portions of the light emitting area is a top emission-type LED.
Conclusion
This is a Continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/673,527. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights