Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/369,410

IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 18, 2023
Examiner
GONZALEZ, LUIS A
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
885 granted / 1044 resolved
+32.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +5% lift
Without
With
+4.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1078
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§112
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1044 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/2025 has been entered. 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 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Kosugi US 7,677,549 (hereinafter “Kosugi”) in view of Higaki JP 2019-218178 A (hereinafter “Higaki”). Regarding claim 13, Kosugi, with reference to annotated FIG. 1 below, teaches an image forming system, comprising: PNG media_image1.png 561 990 media_image1.png Greyscale an image forming station (3) including a registration roller pair (refer to annotated figure showing set of nip rollers immediately upstream of an image forming unit) and an image forming unit (not labeled but shown immediately downstream of registration roller pair) configured to form an image on a sheet; a first sheet deck (2) separably connected to the image forming station and connected to the image forming station, the first sheet deck including a first storage case (210B or 210C) configured to store a plurality of sheets and another storage case (210A) disposed above the first storage case configured to store a plurality of sheets, and configured to convey the sheets one by one toward the registration roller pair; and a second sheet deck (1) separably connected to the first sheet deck, the second sheet deck including a second storage case configured to store a plurality of sheets, and configured to convey the sheets one by one from the second storage case toward the registration roller pair through the first sheet deck, wherein said first sheet deck includes a sheet relay path (250, refer to FIG. 2) configured such that, when a sheet received from the second sheet deck is conveyed toward the image forming station, the sheet passes between the first storage case and the another storage case; a sheet conveying device (rollers 253 or 205 or 233) provided above the first storage case and configured to convey the sheet in the sheet relay path received from the second sheet deck toward the registration roller pair, and a correction mechanism (253A to correct skew) configured to correct skew of the sheet when the sheet conveyed from the second sheet deck is conveyed toward the image forming station. Kosugi teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly teaching wherein the correction mechanism is configured to correct a position in a width direction of the sheet one by one so that the positions in a width direction of the sheets are aligned with each other in a case that the sheet in the sheet relay path is conveyed toward the registration roller pair by the sheet conveying device. Higaki, with reference to FIG. 1, teaches the desirability to correct skew and lateral position of a sheet leaving a sheet deck. Prior to reaching a registration roller nip (110), a correction mechanism (131, skew correction of the sheet S may be performed by the pair of conveying rollers 131 of the sheet conveying apparatus 1001, controller 120 performs the lateral registration correction by shifting the pair of conveying rollers 131 and 132 in the sheet width direction), located upstream of the registration roller pair (110), corrects the skew and the lateral position of the sheet “thereby preventing the print quality from being lowered.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Kosugi’s skew correction mechanism with skew/lateral position correction mechanism of Higaki in order to achieve the predictable result of correcting skew and the additional benefit of correcting a lateral position of a sheet “so as not to lower print quality.” Regarding claim 14, the combination of references teach wherein the position correction mechanism is provided above the first storage case. Regarding claim 17, Kosugi teaches wherein the image forming station includes an image forming part (refer to FIG. 1, section 3 shows image forming part located at the top and a plurality of sheet feeding trays located on the bottom) and a plurality of sheet feeding units located under the image forming part, the sheets in the first sheet deck formed separately from the image forming station being conveyed to the image forming part. Regarding claim 18, Kosugi teaches wherein the first sheet deck further includes another sheet conveying device (236 in FIG. 2 of Kosugi) configured to convey the sheet conveyed from the first storage case to the image forming station, and the other sheet conveying device is further configured to convey the sheet conveyed from the sheet conveying device to the image forming station. Claim 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Kosugi in view of Higaki, and further in view of Kimura et al. JP 2017-075049 A (hereinafter “Kimura”). Regarding claim 15, Kosugi in view of Higaki fails to teach wherein the position correction mechanism includes a conveying belt configured to convey the sheet received from the second sheet deck toward the image forming station in a conveying direction, a plurality of balls arranged along the conveying direction, the plurality of balls being configured to rotate passively together with the sheet conveyed by the conveying belt, a holding mechanism configured to hold the plurality of balls and to allow the plurality of balls to rotate in any direction while partially contacting the surface of the plurality of balls; and a correction guide provided on one side of the conveying belt in the width direction of the sheet, the correction guide being configured to correct the position of the sheet conveyed by the conveying belt and the plurality of balls in the width direction of the sheet when the sheet abuts the correction guide while the sheet is being conveyed by the conveying belt and the plurality of balls. Kimura, with reference to FIGS. 1-4, teaches a correction mechanism comprising PNG media_image2.png 428 691 media_image2.png Greyscale a conveying belt (right member 5 in FIG. 2); a plurality of balls (right member 1 in FIG. 2) arranged along the conveying direction, the plurality of balls being configured to rotate passively together with the sheet conveyed by the conveying belt, a holding mechanism configured to hold the plurality of balls and to allow the plurality of balls (2) to rotate in any direction while partially contacting the surface of the plurality of balls, and a correction guide (left member 3 in FIG. 2) provided on one side of the conveying belt in the width direction of the sheet, the correction guide being configured to correct the position of the sheet conveyed by the conveying belt and the plurality of balls in the width direction of the sheet when the sheet abuts the correction guide while the sheet is being conveyed by the conveying belt and the plurality of balls. Kimura’s correction mechanism is for correcting lateral position and capable of correcting skew. Kimura also teaches to correct position of the sheet while the sheet is being conveyed in order to avoid downtime required for stopping a sheet prior to position correction, thereby increasing throughput. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Kosugi in view of Higaki’s correction mechanism with the correction mechanism of Kimura in order to achieve the predictable result of correcting lateral position with the added benefit of avoiding downtime required for stopping a sheet to perform skew correction, thereby increasing throughput. Regarding claim 16, Kimura’s correction mechanism teaches wherein the position correction mechanism is configured to correct the position of the sheet while the sheet is being conveyed. Regarding claim 19, Kimura’s correction mechanism doesn’t explicitly teach a guide moving mechanism configured to move the correction guide as claimed, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to automatically move by a guide moving mechanism (a mechanical actuator/drive source) since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which as accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (in this case, a drive source to automatically adjust the position of the correction guide to multiple positions to receive and correct sheets of different width for improved efficiency). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding dependent claim 19, Applicant argues on page 8 of Remarks that the office action failed to cite any reference showing the claimed feature (“a guide moving mechanism”). In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner admitted that Kimura is silent to a “guide moving mechanism”, and essentially took official notice that one of ordinary of skill in art would provide a means to automatically move a guide with a conventional guide moving means (mechanical actuator or drive source) to multiple positions as claimed for improved efficiency. Additionally, the examiner has now provided a cited reference in Seto US 2003/0129008 A1 (refer to 47, 50 in FIG. 4 to move guides 41 and 42) as an example (in support) to show guides driven by an actuator/drive source. Regarding amended independent claim 1, Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that the combination of references fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention, because Higaki “does not disclose an image forming mechanism with multiple decks and is silent regarding the claimed sheet relay path configured such that, when a sheet received from the second sheet deck is conveyed toward the image forming station, the sheet passes between the first storage case and the another storage case.” In response, the examiner takes the position that primary reference of Kosugi already teaches an image forming mechanism with multiple decks and sheet relay path configured such that, when a sheet received from the second sheet deck is conveyed toward the image forming station, the sheet passes between the first storage case and the another storage case. Kosugi’s correction mechanism was simply substituted with Higaki’s position correction mechanism (teaching the desirability to correct skew and lateral position of a sheet leaving a sheet deck toward a registration device). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seto US 2003/0129008 A1 teaches a known skew and lateral correction mechanism that uses a guide moving mechanism (47, 50) to move guides to multiple positions. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3094. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm. 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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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. /LUIS A GONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 18, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600592
MEDIUM EJECTION APPARATUS INCLUDING EJECTION TRAY FORMED WITH RECESSED PART AND BEAM PART
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600587
MEDIUM FEED APPARATUS TO ADVANCE SUCCEEDING SHEET OF MEDIUM WHEN PRECEDING SHEET OF MEDIUM PASSES PICK ROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583143
SHEET PROCESSING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577002
GRASPING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSERTING SEPARATION SHEETS IN A RECEPTACLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577077
SHEET REMOVER, CONVEYING DEVICE, AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+4.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1044 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month