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 .
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: 1) it merely consists of a single run-on sentence without regard for proper grammatical form; and 2) it refers to purported merits of the invention. 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 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:
“transporter” in claim 1;
“image former” in claim 1;
“transferrer” in claim 1;
“transporter” in claim 7;
“image former” in claim 7;
“transferrer” in claim 7.
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 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 1-6 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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 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: structure, means or method for obtaining information related to speed variation of the transfer body.
Claims 5-6 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.
Claim 5 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the “frequency of the speed variation” is tied to the ‘information’ as in the ‘information’ includes the occurrence start point and the frequency; or if the “correct a density” phrasing is using ‘information on an occurrence start point’ and ‘frequency of the speed variation’
Claims 5-6 are also 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: structure, means or method for obtaining an occurrence start point of a phenomenon; and structure, means or method for obtaining the frequency of the speed variation.
Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “a phenomenon” and the Office is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 is 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: structure, means or method for obtaining information related to speed variation of the transfer body.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 is 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: structure, means or method for obtaining information related to speed variation of the transfer body.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a transporter (fig.1, #61/#210/#230/#270) including a gripper to grip a recording medium (fig.1, #610; fig.2, #610 comprising #611 & #612; para.0057); an image former (fig.1, any of #30Y-#30K) that forms a developer image on a transfer body (fig.1, #40); a transferrer (fig.1, #41/#52) that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #61) having space to store the gripper (fig.2&3, #605 storing #610); and a processor (not shown, but must be present to control the apparatus).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for controlling (not explicitly disclosed, but must be present to operate the apparatus disclosed) an image forming apparatus (fig.1) including: a transporter (fig.1, #61/#210/#230/#270) including a gripper to grip a recording medium (fig.1, #610; fig.2, #610 comprising #611 & #612; para.0057); an image former (fig.1, any of #30Y-#30K) that forms a developer image on a transfer body (fig.1, #40); a transferrer (fig.1, #41/#52) that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #61) having space to store the gripper (fig.2&3, #605 storing #610); and a processor (not shown, but must be present to control the apparatus).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: means for transporting transporter (fig.1, #61/#210/#230/#270), including a gripper to grip a recording medium (fig.1, #610; fig.2, #610 comprising #611 & #612; para.0057); means for forming a developer image (fig.1, any of #30Y-#30K) on a transfer body (fig.1, #40); means for transferring the developer image to the recording medium (fig.1, #41/#52) by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #61) having space to store the gripper (fig.2&3, #605 storing #610).
However, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) fail to discuss density controls.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for controlling an image forming apparatus (fig.5) comprising: a transporter / means for transporting (fig.1, #22D/#23/#7A); an image former that forms / a means for forming a developer image (fig.1, #1Y-#1K) on a transfer body (fig.1, #6); a transferrer / a means for transferring that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, roll opposing #7A to press and support #6 against cylinder #7A); and a processor / means for correcting (fig.5) configured to: correct a density of the developer image formed in the image former (fig.6, #S1->#S6), using information related to speed variation of the transfer body when the developer image is transferred to the recording medium (fig.6, #S4; fig.9), so that density unevenness in an image formed on the recording medium is reduced (para.0006-0009&0205&0246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) by incorporating a gradation/density control process with timing adjustment as in Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) since gradation correction occurs in conventional image forming apparatus (para.0007) in order to accurately perform gradation/density correction even if the belt speed fluctuates (para.0006,0009&0246).
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721).
Examiner note: In the event that the claim limitation “correct a density of the developer image formed in the image former, using information related to speed variation of the transfer body when the developer image is transferred to the recording medium, so that density unevenness in an image formed on the recording medium is reduced” should be more narrowly interpreted, the following rejection is also presented.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a transporter (fig.1, #61/#210/#230/#270) including a gripper to grip a recording medium (fig.1, #610; fig.2, #610 comprising #611 & #612; para.0057); an image former (fig.1, any of #30Y-#30K) that forms a developer image on a transfer body (fig.1, #40); a transferrer (fig.1, #41/#52) that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #61) having space to store the gripper (fig.2&3, #605 storing #610); and a processor (not shown, but must be present to control the apparatus).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for controlling (not explicitly disclosed, but must be present to operate the apparatus disclosed) an image forming apparatus (fig.1) including: a transporter (fig.1, #61/#210/#230/#270) including a gripper to grip a recording medium (fig.1, #610; fig.2, #610 comprising #611 & #612; para.0057); an image former (fig.1, any of #30Y-#30K) that forms a developer image on a transfer body (fig.1, #40); a transferrer (fig.1, #41/#52) that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #61) having space to store the gripper (fig.2&3, #605 storing #610); and a processor (not shown, but must be present to control the apparatus).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: means for transporting transporter (fig.1, #61/#210/#230/#270), including a gripper to grip a recording medium (fig.1, #610; fig.2, #610 comprising #611 & #612; para.0057); means for forming a developer image (fig.1, any of #30Y-#30K) on a transfer body (fig.1, #40); means for transferring the developer image to the recording medium (fig.1, #41/#52) by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #61) having space to store the gripper (fig.2&3, #605 storing #610).
However, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) fail to discuss density controls.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for controlling an image forming apparatus (fig.5) comprising: a transporter / means for transporting (fig.1, #22D/#23/#7A); an image former that forms / a means for forming a developer image (fig.1, #1Y-#1K) on a transfer body (fig.1, #6); a transferrer / a means for transferring that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, roll opposing #7A to press and support #6 against cylinder #7A); and a processor / means for correcting (fig.5) configured to: correct a density of the developer image formed in the image former (fig.6, #S1->#S6), using information related to speed variation of the transfer body when the developer image is transferred to the recording medium (fig.6, #S4; fig.9), so that density unevenness in an image formed on the recording medium is reduced (para.0006-0009&0205&0246).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) by incorporating a gradation/density control process with timing adjustment as in Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) since gradation correction occurs in conventional image forming apparatus (para.0007) in order to accurately perform gradation/density correction even if the belt speed fluctuates (para.0006,0009&0246).
However, the density correction process uses information related to speed variation to correct the detection timing, but isn’t being used to correct the density directly.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) teaches an image forming apparatus (fig.1) and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for controlling an image forming apparatus (fig.17, #1000) comprising: a transporter / means for transporting (fig.1, #31/#32); an image former that forms / a means for forming a developer image (fig.1, #200Y-#200K) on a transfer body (fig.1, #24); a transferrer / a means for transferring that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, roll opposing #31 to press and support #24, cylinder #31); and a processor / means for correcting configured to: correct a density of the developer image formed in the image former, using information related to speed variation of the transfer body when the developer image is transferred to the recording medium, so that density unevenness in an image formed on the recording medium is reduced (para.0087-0097&0114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image forming apparatus of Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) to have a density correction that takes into account the rotation speed variation of the intermediate transfer belt as in Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) in order to correct the periodic unevenness of the image by correcting the image data (para.0087&0114).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748).
Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends.
However, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) fail to teach the information related to speed variation being information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of a component that rotates in conjunction with the transfer body.
Regarding claim 2, Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a transporter (fig.1, #43/#42/#20); an image former that forms a developer image (fig.1, #11-#14) on a transfer body (fig.1, #15); a transferrer that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #16 to press and support #15 against cylinder #20); and a processor (fig.11) configured to: correct a density of the developer image formed in the image former (fig.11, via #603; fig.12, #S3->#S12) and uses information related to speed variation of the transfer body when the developer image is transferred to the recording medium (fig.12, #S3->#S11); wherein the information related to speed variation of the transfer body is information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of a component that rotates in conjunction with the transfer body in the image forming apparatus (fig.2-6, #22 work to detect the speed variations of #18 rotating in conjunction with #15).
Regarding claim 4, Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the information related to speed variation of the transfer body is information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of a rotating body that is in contact with the transfer body (fig.2-6, #18 in contact with #15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus and controls of Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) by using a direct rotational sensor as in Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) because it is a known means in the art to accurately detect speed fluctuations in the belt (para.0043).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748).
Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends.
However, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) fail to teach the information related to speed variation being information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of a component that rotates in conjunction with the transfer body.
Regarding claim 2, Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a transporter (fig.1, #43/#42/#20); an image former that forms a developer image (fig.1, #11-#14) on a transfer body (fig.1, #15); a transferrer that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #16 to press and support #15 against cylinder #20); and a processor (fig.11) configured to: correct a density of the developer image formed in the image former (fig.11, via #603; fig.12, #S3->#S12) and uses information related to speed variation of the transfer body when the developer image is transferred to the recording medium (fig.12, #S3->#S11); wherein the information related to speed variation of the transfer body is information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of a component that rotates in conjunction with the transfer body in the image forming apparatus (fig.2-6, #22 work to detect the speed variations of #18 rotating in conjunction with #15).
Regarding claim 4, Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the information related to speed variation of the transfer body is information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of a rotating body that is in contact with the transfer body (fig.2-6, #18 in contact with #15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus and controls of Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) by using a direct rotational sensor as in Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) because it is a known means in the art to accurately detect speed fluctuations in the belt (para.0043).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takigawa (US Pub.2003/0223768).
Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) teach all of the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends.
However, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) fail to teach the information related to speed variation based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of the transfer cylinder.
Regarding claim 3, Takigawa (US Pub.2003/0223768) teaches an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a transporter (unshown, the paper guides before, after, and including #300); an image former that forms a developer image (fig.1, #100K-#100M) on a transfer body (fig.1, #200); a transferrer that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #203 to press and support #200 against cylinder #300); and a processor (fig.5) configured to: uses information related to speed variation of the transfer body and the transfer cylinder to prevent misregistration due to speed variation (para.0028-0030; fig.1, #211 & #212); wherein the information related to speed variation of the transfer body is information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of the transfer cylinder (para.0028-0030; fig.1, #212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fluctuation detection correction processes of Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) with the additional detection of Takigawa (US Pub.2003/0223768) in order to reduce the effect of the rotation of the transfer cylinder on the intermediate transfer belt (para.0030).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takigawa (US Pub.2003/0223768).
Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) teach all of the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends.
However, Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) fail to teach the information related to speed variation based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of the transfer cylinder.
Regarding claim 3, Takigawa (US Pub.2003/0223768) teaches an image forming apparatus (fig.1) comprising: a transporter (unshown, the paper guides before, after, and including #300); an image former that forms a developer image (fig.1, #100K-#100M) on a transfer body (fig.1, #200); a transferrer that transfers the developer image to the recording medium by bringing the transfer body with the developer image formed into contact with a transfer cylinder (fig.1, #203 to press and support #200 against cylinder #300); and a processor (fig.5) configured to: uses information related to speed variation of the transfer body and the transfer cylinder to prevent misregistration due to speed variation (para.0028-0030; fig.1, #211 & #212); wherein the information related to speed variation of the transfer body is information based on a detection signal of a rotational speed sensor to detect a rotational speed of the transfer cylinder (para.0028-0030; fig.1, #212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fluctuation detection correction processes of Tanaka et al. (US Pub.2010/0247172) in view of Touura (US Pub.2004/0246545) and in view of Taniguchi (US Pub.2020/0333721) and further in view of Inui et al. (US Pub.2006/0171748) with the additional detection of Takigawa (US Pub.2003/0223768) in order to reduce the effect of the rotation of the transfer cylinder on the intermediate transfer belt (para.0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumagai et al. (US Pub.2018/0059583) disclose a density detection that takes into account belt speed fluctuations to determine timing.
Shimba et al. US Pub.2013/0302051) disclose correcting misregistration and density in the same sequence.
Tagawa et al. (US 6,038,423) discloses forming a registration pattern and detecting the pattern and using that to control the speed variation of the belt to prevent inconsistencies in density, but does not change the density correction.
Castelli et al. (US 5,075,702) disclose an encoder roll for a photosensitive belt for preventing misregistration of an image.
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/
7/31/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights