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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Tashiro fails to teach “calculating widths of the test patterns,” since the streak-shaped image shown in FIG. 5 of Tashiro is NOT the same as the width of the test patterns. This argument is not persuasive because the streak-shaped image 201 and 202 of Tashiro as shown in FIG. 5 is a test pattern. Furthermore what is claimed is that a processor is configured to… execute abnormality determination processing for calculating widths of the test patterns based on the detection results output form the plurality of sensor sand determining an abnormality is response to a difference between the widths of the test patterns exceeding a threshold. Given that the teaching of the streak-shaped image by Tashiro corresponds to a test pattern since they are part of an inspection image 200 (C9 L23-39), applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. US 2019/0369518 (Murakami) and Tashiro US 11,281,146 B1 (Tashiro).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches an image forming device, comprising:
a transfer belt (105) on which toner images are formed;
a plurality of image forming components (106) arranged in a moving direction of the transfer belt (105) and configured to form the toner images of test patterns having the same width on the transfer belt (FIG. 6);
a plurality of sensors (170) configured to detect the toner images formed on the transfer belt (¶0116); and
a processor (20) configured to:
determine a relative positional misalignment among the toner images formed by the plurality of image forming components based on detection results output from the plurality of sensors (S3801, ¶0198-¶0199),
perform alignment control of adjusting formation timings of the toner images on the transfer belt in the plurality of image forming components based on a determination result (¶0111),
output a determination result of the abnormality determination processing (S3806), wherein outputting the determination result of the abnormality determination processing indicates whether an abnormality occurs in at least the transfer belt or any of the sensors (¶0200).
Murakami differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: execute abnormality determination processing for calculating widths of the test patterns based on the detection results output from the plurality of sensors and determining an abnormality in response to a difference between the widths of the test patterns exceeding a threshold. However, this is a known technique. Tashiro teaches processor 131 determination unit 1313 for calculating widths of the test patterns (streak-shaped image) based on the detection results output from the plurality of sensors and determining an abnormality in response to a difference between the widths of the test patterns exceeding a threshold (C14 L58-67). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the technique taught by Tashiro with the device taught by Murakami since Tashiro teaches this technique helps with diagnosing image abnormalities and thus can be used to help initiate diagnosis-target processes (C15 L5-20).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 1. Furthermore, Murakami teaches the processor (20) generates a determination result indicating an abnormality based on a difference value among the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeds a threshold value (¶0143-¶0149).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 2. Furthermore, Murakami teaches in the abnormality determination processing, the processor generates the determination result indicating the abnormality based on a maximum value of the difference value among the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeds the threshold value (¶0059-¶0064).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claims 1 and 11. Furthermore Murakami teaches wherein the plurality of image forming components form toner images of test patterns (411-414, 511-513) having the same width on the transfer belt in the moving direction of the transfer belt (105).
Regarding claim 7, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 1. Furthermore, Murakami teaches when a determination result indicating an abnormality is output as the determination result, the processor changes an input voltage for at least one of the plurality of sensors (¶0116).
Regarding claim 8, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 1. Furthermore, Murakami teaches a communication interface (display panel 24) for communicating with an external device via a network,
wherein the processor causes the communication interface to output the determination result of the abnormality determination processing to the external device via the network (¶0071-¶0077).
Regarding claim 9, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 2. Furthermore, Murakami teaches a memory configured to store, as the threshold value, a plurality of threshold values respectively corresponding to a plurality of moving speeds set for the transfer belt (FIG. 10), wherein in the abnormality determination processing, the processor generates a determination result indicating an abnormality by trying the plurality of threshold values one by one (¶0156).
Regarding claim 10, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 1. Furthermore, Murakami teaches the plurality of sensors (170) are arranged in a direction orthogonal to the moving direction of the transfer belt (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Murakami teaches an image forming method, comprising:
forming toner images of test patterns having the same width (FIG. 6) on a transfer belt (105) with a plurality of image forming components arranged in a moving direction of the transfer belt (105);
detecting the toner images formed on the transfer belt with a plurality of sensors (117);
determining a relative positional misalignment among the toner images formed by the plurality of image forming components based on detection results output from the plurality of sensors (¶0094-¶0096);
performing alignment control of adjusting formation timings of the toner images on the transfer belt in the plurality of image forming components based on a determination result (S3801, ¶0198-¶0199);
executing abnormality determination processing for determining an abnormality in response to a different between pattern line widths based on of the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeding a threshold (¶0142-¶0149); and
outputting a determination result of the abnormality determination processing (s3806).
Murakami differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: execute abnormality determination processing for determining an abnormality in response to a difference between pattern line widths based on the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeding a threshold. However, this is a known technique. Tashiro teaches executing (ACT 31 – ACT37) abnormality determination processing for determining an abnormality in response to a difference between pattern line widths based on the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeding a threshold (C14 L58-67). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the technique taught by Tashiro with the device taught by Murakami since Tashiro teaches this technique helps with diagnosing image abnormalities and thus can be used to help initiate diagnosis-target processes (C15 L5-20).
Regarding claim 12, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming method according to claim 11. Furthermore, Murakami teaches generating a determination result indicating an abnormality based on a difference value among the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeding a threshold value (¶0199-¶0201).
Regarding claim 13, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming method according to claim 12. Furthermore, Murakami teaches generating the determination result indicating the abnormality based on a maximum value of the difference value among the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceed the threshold value (¶0202-¶0203).
Regarding claim 17, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming method according to claim 11. Furthermore, Murakami teaches communicating with an external device via a network (28); and
outputting the determination result of the abnormality determination processing to the external device via the network (¶0073-¶0077).
Regarding claim 18, Murakami teaches an image forming apparatus, comprising:
a sheet processing device (25); and
an image forming device (100), comprising:
a transfer belt (105) on which toner images are formed;
a plurality of image forming components (106) arranged in a moving direction of the transfer belt (105) and configured to form the toner images of test patterns having the same width on the transfer belt (FIG. 6);
a plurality of sensors (117/170) configured to detect the toner images formed on the transfer belt (105); and
a processor (20) configured to determine a relative positional misalignment () among the toner images formed by the plurality of image forming components based on detection results output from the plurality of sensors (S3801, ¶0198-¶0199),
perform alignment control of adjusting formation timings of the toner images on the transfer belt in the plurality of image forming components based on a determination result (¶0111),
execute abnormality determination processing for determining an abnormality in response to a difference between pattern line widths based on of the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeding a threshold (s3802, ¶0200), and
output a determination result of the abnormality determination processing (S3806).
Murakami differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: wherein outputting the determination result of the abnormality determination processing indicates whether an abnormality occurs in at least the transfer belt or any of the sensors. However, this is a known technique. Tashiro teaches executing (ACT 51 – ACT 56) abnormality determination process indicates whether an abnormality occurs in at least the transfer belt or any of the sensors (C16 L15-59). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the technique taught by Tashiro with the device taught by Murakami since Tashiro teaches this technique helps with diagnosing image abnormalities and thus can be used to help initiate diagnosis-target processes (C15 L5-20).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 18. Furthermore, Murakami teaches the processor generates a determination result indicating an abnormality based on a difference value among the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeds a threshold value (¶0143-¶0149).
Regarding claim 20, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming device according to claim 19. Furthermore, Murakami teaches in the abnormality determination processing, the processor generates the determination result indicating the abnormality based on a maximum value of the difference value among the detection results output from the plurality of sensors exceeds the threshold value (¶0143-¶0149).
Claims 5, 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. US 2019/0369518 (Murakami), Tashiro US 11,281,146 B1 (Tashiro) and Kubota et al. US 2013/0064564 A1 (Kubota).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 15, Murakami teaches the image forming device according to claims 1 and 11. Murakami and Tashiro differ from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the plurality of sensors respectively comprises binarization sensors configured to output binary values of ON and OFF, and in the abnormality determination processing, the processor generates a determination result indicating an abnormality based on a difference among ON and OFF timings of output values of the plurality of binarization sensors when toner images of test patterns having the same width are formed on the transfer belt in the moving direction of the transfer belt exceeds a threshold value. Kubota teaches the plurality of sensors respectively comprises binarization sensors configured to output binary values of ON and OFF (¶0082), and in the abnormality determination processing, the processor generates a determination result indicating an abnormality based on a difference among ON and OFF timings of output values of the plurality of binarization sensors when toner images of test patterns having the same width are formed on the transfer belt in the moving direction of the transfer belt exceeds a threshold value (¶0117-¶0128). Furthermore, Kubota teaches wherein the ON and OFF timings output from the binarization sensors comprise two switching timings of a switching timing from ON to OFF corresponding to a switching position from a surface of the transfer belt to the toner images of the test patterns and a switching timing from OFF to ON corresponding to a switching position from the toner images of the test patterns to the surface of the transfer belt (¶0082), and
in the abnormality determination processing, the processor is further configured to
calculate reading widths of the toner images of the test patterns based on the two switching timings for the plurality of binarization sensors (¶0082), and
generate the determination result indicating the abnormality based on a difference between the reading widths of the plurality of binarization sensors exceeds a threshold value (¶0114-¶0128).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique taught by Kubota with the device taught by Murakami and Tashiro since Kubota teaches this technique accounts for the difference in reflectance between K and YMC, ¶0160-¶0167).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. US 2019/0369518 (Murakami), Tashiro US 11,281,146 B1 (Tashiro) and Kageyama et al. US 2010/0238465 A1 (Kageyama).
Regarding claim 16, Murakami and Tashiro teach the image forming method according to claim 11. Murakami differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: an input voltage for at least one of the plurality of sensors when a determination result indicating an abnormality is output as the determination result. Kageyama teaches changing an input voltage for at least one of the plurality of sensors when a determination result indicating an abnormality is output as the determination result (¶0067). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique for changing the input voltage of the sensor relative to a threshold value as an indicating of an abnormality as taught by Kageyama with the device taught by Murakami and Tashiro since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results at the time filing, namely the result of a sensor feedback.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA L ELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9793. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Jr. Lindsay can be reached on (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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA L ELEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852