The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
The title is not directed to what is claimed now (e.g. no drum cartridge claimed or belt unit claimed).
Claims 7-12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The only difference is that in claim 1, line 8, the applicant uses “corresponds” and in claim 7, line 8, the applicant uses “identified”. Whether the dot count and maximum dot count “correspond” or are “identified” by the developer identification information is believed to be equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,436,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a developing cartridge including a developing roller, a developing memory storing developing identification information, a dot count corresponding to a number of dots printed; the developing cartridge reaching its lifetime being determined by the dot count, and a maximum dot count.
The only difference between the pending claims 1-4 and the patent ‘904 is that claim 1 of ‘904 additionally claims the memory storing a developing roller rotation number and determining whether the developer cartridge has reached its lifetime based on the developer rotation number and a maximum developer rotation number. In other words, the pending claims exclude a limitation which is included in the parent claims (the pending claims are broader than the parent claims).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the exclusion of elements from a claim is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4,7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2006/0051106).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Takahashi et al. teach a developing cartridge 48 including a developing roller 116, toner cartridge 52 and a memory chip 170 (Fig.5,7; par. 92-93,104,108). The memory chip 170 includes a non-volatile memory NVM 184 for storing developer identification information (manufacturer’s serial number 280 and manufacturing date 282) particular to that specific developing cartridge, a life count value 288 showing consumption of the developer cartridge up to a present time, and a lifetime (maximum) threshold value 284 indicating the lifetime of the developing cartridge (Fig.13, par. 140-142). The lifetime count value can be an accumulated drive time, pixel count, number of prints, etc (see par. 195). These values are used to determine the lifetime of the developer cartridge.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the lifetime count value can be number of printed sheets (par. 195).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, the lifetime maximum threshold value 284 could correspond to the maximum number of printed sheets and the lifetime would be determined when the life count value 288 for printed sheets reaches the lifetime maximum threshold value 284 for printed sheets.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the developer identification information 280, 282 would pertain to a specific developer cartridge out of a plurality of developer cartridges.
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.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2006/0051106).
Specifically, Takahashi et al. teach all that is claimed except the developing memory being separated into a first storage area and a second storage area. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that memory storage is divided into different addressable areas and thus it can be said that any data that is stored into different addressable sections of a memory would be stored in separate storage areas which would include a “first” or “second” storage area.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (U.S. 2006/0051106) in view of Choi (U.S. 2006/0018673).
Takahashi et al. taught supra discloses most of what is claimed except the developer cartridge information includes a volume of the developing cartridge.
Choi teach a developing cartridge 110 having a memory 141 which stores data regarding the volume of the developing cartridge. A controller 140 will use this data, along with other information, to control the amount of developer which is supplied to the developer cartridge so that the space occupancy can be maintained in a predetermined range (see Fig.2, par. 45,55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to also include a volume information in the Takahashi et al. developing cartridge memory so that a developer amount can be maintained in a predetermined range as taught by Choi.
Claims 1-4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spink et al. (U.S. 2013/0108285).
Spink et al. teach a replaceable unit (cartridge) 14 which applies images to print media (par. 31) which includes one or more a photoreceptor 30, charger 36, exposure station 38, developing unit 40, transferring unit 42 or cleaning device 44 (Fig. 1, par. 31-32); the replaceable unit includes a memory 60 which retains information pertaining to a particular replaceable unit (i.e. identification) and the life of the replaceable unit; the information includes end of life values such as maximum print count and maximum pixel usage and the cumulative values of print count and pixel usage at the present time (par. 38); the end of life of the replaceable unit is determined when the current cumulative usage reaches the end of life values (par. 39).
Specifically, Spink et al. teach all that is claimed except the developing unit mentioned in Sprink et al. as a replaceable unit has a developing roller and that the developing memory being separated into a first storage area and a second storage area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a developing unit would typically include a developing roller as a means to apply the toner to a photosensitive drum which is notoriously well known and of which the examiner takes Official Notice. Additionally, the memory storage being divided into different addressable areas and thus it can be said that any data that is stored into different addressable sections of a memory would be stored in separate storage areas which would include a “first” or “second” storage area.
Claims 1-4,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2006/0127105).
Lee teach a replaceable unit (cartridge) 200 which includes toner for printing and includes a memory 250 (par. 32) which retains information pertaining to a particular replaceable unit (i.e. identification) and the life of the replaceable unit (par. 45); the information includes end of life values such as maximum print count and maximum pixel usage and the cumulative values of print count and pixel usage at the present time (par. 47-49); the end of life of the replaceable unit is determined (i.e. toner low condition) when the current cumulative usage reaches the end of life values (par. 49) and printing ends (par. 15).
Specifically, Lee teach all that is claimed except the toner cartridge includes a developing unit/ developing roller and that the developing memory being separated into a first storage area and a second storage area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a toner cartridge would typically include a developing unit/ developing roller as a means to apply the toner to a photosensitive drum which is notoriously well known and of which the examiner takes Official Notice. Additionally, the memory storage being divided into different addressable areas and thus it can be said that any data that is stored into different addressable sections of a memory would be stored in separate storage areas which would include a “first” or “second” storage area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B BEATTY whose telephone number is (571) 272-2130. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7 to 3.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Stephanie Bloss, can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-2130.
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).
/ROBERT B BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights