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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/30/2026 has been received and claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 17 on p. 16 of Specification, delete “operation” and insert --control--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “ID recognition unit” in claim 10.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “lock mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, there is no written description support of a corresponding structure for the “ID recognition unit” within the Specification.
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.
Claim 10 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.
In Claim 10, it is not clear what corresponding structure(s) is/are for limitation "ID recognition unit" being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martz (20190351082).
As to Claim 1, Martz (‘082) discloses an image forming apparatus (1) comprising:
an operation panel (100);
a tray (102, 107) openable and closable (via a door/ (101)/opening (110)) in a drawer manner (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0069] – lines 3-4) provided in a lower part of the operation panel (100) and configured to store a small article (500) (see entire document, particularly Figures 2-5, 9 and 17-25, p. 5 [0069] – lines 3-4);
a light source (201) for sterilization provided in a lower part of the tray (102, 107) (see Figures 2 and 9) and configured to irradiate sterilization light within the tray (102, 107) when the tray (102, 107) is in a closed state (see entire document, particularly Figures 5-9 and 13, pp. 5-6 [0072]);
a lock mechanism (i.e. lock/locking portion of 106) configured to lock and unlock the tray (102, 107) (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0070]); and
a controller (300) configured to control the irradiation of the sterilization light by the light source (201) for sterilization (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]) and configured to control locking and unlocking of the tray by the lock mechanism (106) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069] and [0070] – lines 7-12, p. 8 [0087] and [0090]),
wherein the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to perform the irradiation of the sterilization light and the lock mechanism (106) to lock the tray (102, 107) in the closed state in parallel with performance of a job capable of being an image forming job, and
based upon detection of an end of the job capable of being an image forming job, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light and causes the lock mechanism (106) to unlock the tray (102, 107).
As to Claim 4, Martz (‘082) discloses that based on detecting input of a start instruction for the job capable of being an image forming job (via 303, 305) to the operation panel (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0068] – lines 2-4 and last 16 lines, p. 6 [0077]), the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light and, based on detecting the end of the image forming job, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 5, Martz (‘082) discloses that based on detecting input of a start instruction for the job capable of being an image forming job to the operation panel (via 303, 305), the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 6 [0077]) and, based on a sterilization time set via the operation panel (e.x.: via 250) elapsing, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 6 [0077], pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 6, Martz (‘082) discloses that the imaging forming apparatus (1) further comprises:
an opening and closing sensor (302) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (102, 107) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0067] and [0069]),
wherein based on the opening and closing sensor (340) detecting that the tray (102, 107) is in the closed state, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0067 and [0069], p. 8 [0087]) and, based on an input via the operation panel (via 303, 305) indicating the end of the job capable of being an imaging forming job, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end (i.e. at the end of the sterilization duration) the irradiation of the sterilization light (e.x. via programming/calculations – at the end of a sterilizing sequence, carried out by the controller 300) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 7, Martz (‘082) discloses that the imaging forming apparatus (1) further comprises:
an opening and closing sensor (302) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (102, 107) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0067] and [0069]),
wherein based on the opening and closing sensor (302) detecting that the tray (102, 107) was closed, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0067] and [0069], pp. 7-8 [0086], p. 8 [0087]) and, based on the opening and closing sensor (302) detecting that the tray (102, 107) is in an opened state (i.e. when the 302 no longer detects the closed position), the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069], pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 8, Martz (‘082) discloses that while the controller (300) causes the light source (201) for sterilization to irradiate the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069]), the controller (300) is capable of causing the lock mechanism (106) to maintain the tray in a locked state (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069], p. 8 [0087] and [0090]).
As to Claim 9, Martz (‘082) discloses that while the controller (300) causes the light source (201) for sterilization to irradiate the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]), the controller (300) causes the operation panel (100) to display information (via 303, 304) indicating that sterilization is being performed (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0068]).
As to Claim 10, Martz (‘082) discloses that the image forming apparatus (1) further comprising:
an opening and closing sensor (302) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (102) user (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0067]);
an ID recognition unit (i.e. biometric recognition portion or RFID receiver portion of 106) configured to recognize a user based on ID information associated with the user (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0070] – lines 1-4 and 7-12); and
a transmission circuit configured to transmit notification to a terminal (303) associated with the user (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0068] – last 16 lines), wherein
after causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light, even after a predetermined time elapsed, if the opening and closing sensor (302) continues to detect that the tray (102) is in the closed state, the controller (300) causes the transmission circuit to transmit the notification to the terminal (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0068] – lines 4-9 and last 12 lines).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanya (WO2024086367) in view of Martz (20190351082).
As to Claim 1, Subramanya (‘367) discloses an image forming apparatus (10) (see Figures 1-7), comprising:
an operation panel (14);
a tray (16) openable and closable in a drawer manner provided in a lower part of the operation panel (14) and configured to store a small article (42) (see Figures 1 and 7);
a light source (250) for sterilization provided in a lower part of the tray (16) and configured to irradiate sterilization light within the tray (16) when the tray (16) is in a closed state (see Figures 3 and 5A-6); and
a controller (30, 270) configured to control the irradiation of the sterilization light by the light source (250) for sterilization (see entire document, particularly Figure 5A, p. 8 [0034]-[0036]).
Subramanya (‘421) does not appear to specifically teach a lock mechanism configured to lock and unlock the tray in a closed state or that the controller is configured to control locking and unlocking of the tray by the lock mechanism.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a lock mechanism in an apparatus for sterilizing objects. Martz (‘082) discloses an image forming apparatus (1) comprising:
an operation panel (100);
a tray (102, 107) openable and closable (via a door/ (101)/opening (110)) provided in a lower part of the operation panel (100) and configured to store a small article (500) (see entire document, particularly Figures 2-5, 9 and 17-25, p. 5 [0069] – lines 3-4);
a light source (201) for sterilization provided in a lower part of the tray (102, 107) (see Figures 2 and 9) and configured to irradiate sterilization light within the tray (102, 107) when the tray (102, 107) is in a closed state (see Figures 5-9 and 13);
a lock mechanism (i.e. lock/locking portion of 106) configured to lock and unlock the tray (102, 107) (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0070]); and
a controller (300) configured to control the irradiation of the sterilization light by the light source (201) for sterilization (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]) and configured to control locking and unlocking of the tray by the lock mechanism (106) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069] and [0070] – lines 7-12, p. 8 [0087] and [0090]),
wherein the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to perform the irradiation of the sterilization light and the lock mechanism (106) to lock the tray (102, 107) in the closed state in parallel with performance of a job capable of being an image forming job, and
based upon detection of an end of the job capable of being an image forming job, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light and causes the lock mechanism (106) to unlock the tray (102, 107).
in order to ensure that the sterilization light does not escape the tray/operation panel so as to ensure safety of bystander(s) and to prevent unauthorized access to the apparatus and to any article stored within (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069]-[0070], p. 8 [0087] and [0090] – lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a lock mechanism in the apparatus of Subramanya as a known component in order to prevent unauthorized access to the apparatus and/or the article(s) within and to prevent any sterilization light from escaping so as to ensure bystander(s) safety as shown by Martz.
As to Claim 2, Subramanya (‘367) discloses that the tray (16) includes a bottom plate (232) in which an opening (i.e. where 250 are located) for allowing the sterilization light to pass is formed (see Figure 5B).
As to Claim 3, Subramanya (‘367) discloses that the tray (16) includes a bottom plate (232) in which an opening (i.e. where 250 are located) for allowing the sterilization light to pass is formed (see Figure 5B),
the light source for sterilization includes a plurality of light emitting elements (250) that emit the sterilization light, and
in the closed state of the tray (16), the plurality of openings (i.e. where 250 are located) are aligned with the plurality of light emitting elements (250) (see Figure 5A-5B).
As to Claim 4, based on detecting input of a start instruction for a job capable of being an imaging forming job to the operation panel (14 via 20), the controller (30, 270) of Subramanya (‘367) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light and, based on detecting the end of the job capable of being an image forming job, the controller (30, 270) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly p. 10 [0039]).
Based on detecting input of a start instruction for a job capable of being an image forming job (via 303, 305) to the operation panel (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0068] – lines 2-4 and last 16 lines, p. 6 [0077]), the controller (300) of Martz (‘082) is also capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light and, based on detecting the end of the job capable of being an image forming job, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 5, based on detecting input of a start instruction for a job capable of being an image forming job to the operation panel (via 20), the controller (30, 270) of Subramanya (‘367) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light and, based on a sterilization time set via the operation panel (via 20) elapsing, the controller (30, 270) of Subramanya (‘367) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly p. 10 [0039]).
Also, based on detecting input of a start instruction for a job capable of being an image forming job to the operation panel (via 303, 305), the controller (300) of Martz (‘082) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 6 [0077]) and, based on a sterilization time set via the operation panel (e.x.: via 250) elapsing, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 6 [0077], pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 6, Subramanya (‘367) discloses that the imaging forming apparatus (10) further comprises:
an opening and closing sensor (340) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (16) (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0038]),
wherein based on the opening and closing sensor (340) detecting that the tray (16) is in the closed state, the controller (30) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0038]) and, based on an input via the operation panel (14) indicating the end of the job capable of being an image forming job, the controller (30) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to end (i.e. at the end of the sequence time/sterilization duration) the irradiation of the sterilization light.
Martz (‘082) also discloses that the imaging forming apparatus (1) further comprises:
an opening and closing sensor (302) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (102, 107) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0067] and [0069]),
wherein based on the opening and closing sensor (340) detecting that the tray (102, 107) is in the closed state, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0067 and [0069], p. 8 [0087]) and, based on an input via the operation panel (via 303, 305) indicating the end of the job capable of being an imaging forming job, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end (i.e. at the end of the sterilization duration) the irradiation of the sterilization light (e.x. via programming/calculations – at the end of a sterilizing sequence, carried out by the controller 300) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 7, Subramanya (‘367) discloses that the imaging forming apparatus (10) further comprises:
an opening and closing sensor (340) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (16) (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0038]),
wherein based on the opening and closing sensor (340) detecting that the tray (16) was closed, the controller (30) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0038]) and, based on the opening and closing sensor (340) detecting that the tray (16) is in an opened state (i.e. when the 340 no longer detects the closed position), the controller (30) is capable of causing the light source (250) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly p. 9 [0038]).
Martz (‘082) also discloses that the imaging forming apparatus (1) further comprises:
an opening and closing sensor (302) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (102, 107) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0067] and [0069]),
wherein based on the opening and closing sensor (302) detecting that the tray (102, 107) was closed, the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to start the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0067] and [0069], pp. 7-8 [0086], p. 8 [0087]) and, based on the opening and closing sensor (302) detecting that the tray (102, 107) is in an opened state (i.e. when the 302 no longer detects the closed position), the controller (300) is capable of causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069], pp. 7-8 [0086]).
As to Claim 8, Martz (‘082) discloses that while the controller (300) causes the light source (201) for sterilization to irradiate the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069]), the controller (300) is capable of causing the lock mechanism (106) to maintain the tray in a locked state (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0069], p. 8 [0087] and [0090]).
As to Claim 9, Subramanya (‘367) discloses that while the controller (30, 270) causes the light source (250) for sterilization to irradiate the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 5A, p. 8 [0034]-[0036]), the controller (30, 270) causes the operation panel (14) to display information (via 20) indicating that sterilization is being performed (see entire document, particularly Figures 1 and 7).
Martz (‘082) also discloses that while the controller (300) causes the light source (201) for sterilization to irradiate the sterilization light (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, pp. 7-8 [0086]), the controller (300) causes the operation panel (100) to display information (via 303, 304) indicating that sterilization is being performed (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 5 [0068]).
As to Claim 10, Martz (‘082) discloses that the image forming apparatus (1) further comprising:
an opening and closing sensor (302) configured to detect opening and closing of the tray (102) user (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0067]);
an ID recognition unit (i.e. biometric recognition portion or RFID receiver portion of 106) configured to recognize a user based on ID information associated with the user (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0070] – lines 1-4 and 7-12); and
a transmission circuit configured to transmit notification to a terminal (303) associated with the user (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0068] – last 16 lines), wherein
after causing the light source (201) for sterilization to end the irradiation of the sterilization light, even after a predetermined time elapsed, if the opening and closing sensor (302) continues to detect that the tray (102) is in the closed state, the controller (300) causes the transmission circuit to transmit the notification to the terminal (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0068] – lines 4-9 and last 12 lines).
Thus, Claims 1-10 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Subramanya (‘367) and Martz (‘082).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument on pp. 9-10 of Remarks with respect to Martz, examiner disagrees and points out that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In addition, as to applicant’s argument on p. 10 of Remarks that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., image forming apparatus or image forming job) are not recited in the rejected claim(s); more specifically, the prior art of Martz discloses all of the claimed structural features of the claimed image forming apparatus and there is not a specific additional structure recited that performs an image forming function in the claims (thus, the prior art of Martz discloses “an image forming apparatus” containing all of the recited structures as set forth in the claims) and the limitation of “image forming job” is merely directed to an intended use of an apparatus as discussed above. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to applicant’s argument on pp. 11-12 of Remarks with respect to Subramanya, examiner again disagrees and points out that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See also the discussion in the paragraph above.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 12 – line 5 of Remarks regarding a lock mechanism, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in view of Subramanya have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Subramanya in view of Martz.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights