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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 17, it is suggested that the term “a second recording medium” in line 3 be deleted and replaced with the term --the second recording medium-- since the second recording medium was previously recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-20 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.
With respect to claim 1, the phrase “when the hardware processor detects the second recording medium” is not clear in scope or meaning and appears to be inconsistent with the other claim language. In particular, it is noted that the hardware processor was previously recited in lines 6-8 as “causing the sensor to detect the information…relating to the second recording medium.” Thus, it is not clear that the hardware processor is doing any detecting of the second recording medium since the processor itself is not disclosed as detecting anything but instead causing the sensor to detect the values. Note that a similar problem occurs with the same language added to claims 19 and 20.
With respect to claim 12, there are numerous terms that lack proper antecedent basis including the following terms: the output destination, the notification, the display section, the operation panel section, the printer driver, the user’s information terminal, the server or cloud, the network. Furthermore, the claim is somewhat unclear as to whether this claim is intending to positively recite the additional structure of a display section, an operation panel section, a print driver, an information terminal, a server or cloud and/or a network. Additionally, claim 12 lacks a period at the end of the claim which renders the claim unclear as whether the claim is intended to include something more. In an effort to advance prosecution, claim 12 has been interpreted as a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation that merely defines where the notification information is intended to be sent.
With respect to claim 19, the term “the hardware processor” does not have any proper antecedent basis because no hardware processor was previously recited in the claim.
With respect to claim 20, the term “the hardware processor” does not have any proper antecedent basis because no hardware processor was previously recited in the claim.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under each of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aoki (US 2007/0025745 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Aoki teaches an image forming apparatus 101 (Figs. 12-14) comprising:
a conveyance section 103, 225 that conveys a first recording medium P and a second recording medium P;
a sensor 123 that detects information relating to the first recording medium P and information relating to the second recording medium P; and
a hardware processor 501, 502 that causes the sensor 123 to detect the information relating to the first recording medium P conveyed first by the conveyance section 103, 225 and to detect the information relating to the second recording medium P conveyed by the conveyance section 103, 225 after the first recording medium, and outputs the detected information relating to the second recording medium after the first recording medium, wherein the hardware processor 501, 502 “outputs notification information” when the hardware processor detects the second recording medium P after the first recording medium P. See, in particular, Figures 9-15B and paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0054], [0071], [0074], and [0082]-[0111].
With respect to claim 2, Aoki teaches a holder (i.e., cassette or tray 102, 201, 202, 300) that is openable and closable with respect to the image forming apparatus 101 and holds the first and second recording media P,
wherein the hardware processor 501, 502 causes the sensor 123 to detect the information relating to the first recording medium conveyed first by the conveyance section and to detect the information relating to the second recording medium conveyed by the conveyance section after the first recording medium after the holder is closed and before the holder is opened and closed next, as described in paragraphs [0097]-[0101].
With respect to claim 3, Aoki teaches wherein the information relating to the first and second recording media is a physical property value of the first and second recording media or a type of the first and second recording media determined based on the physical property value, and the physical property value is at least one of transmittance information, reflectance information, stiffness information, thickness information, basis weight information, size information, grain direction information, color information, moisture information, smoothness information, resistance information, friction information, and information of at least any one of a pulp material, a coating agent, a fluorescent agent, and a filler that are components of paper. See, for example, paragraphs [0043], [0053] and [0082].
With respect to claim 4, note that the claim recites a further limitation defining the type of recording material. However, the particular recording material is not a part of the positively recited subject matter. Note that MPEP 2114(II) states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Additionally, MPEP 2115 states that the “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Note that since Aoki teaches all of the structure of the image forming apparatus as recited, it is capable of being used with any desired recording material such as an envelope or an OHP sheet and thereby meets the claim language. Regardless, Aoki teaches wherein the first and second recording media include an envelope made of at least one of a pulp material, a resin material, a textile material, and/or an OHP sheet, as described in paragraphs [0082], [0092], and [0107].
With respect to claim 5, note that the claim recites a further limitation defining a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation defining details with respect to the recording material. However, the particular recording material is not a part of the positively recited subject matter. Note that MPEP 2114(II) states “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Additionally, MPEP 2115 states that the “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Note that since Aoki teaches all of the structure of the image forming apparatus as recited, it is capable of being used with any desired recording material such as an envelope or an OHP sheet and thereby meets the claim language. Regardless, Aoki teaches wherein the first recording medium P conveyed first is at least one of a recording medium conveyed first from a sheet feed port after the sheet feed port is closed, a recording medium conveyed first from the sheet feed port when a state in which no recording medium is present is changed to a state in which the recording medium is present, and a recording medium conveyed first from the sheet feed port without information relating to the recording medium, as described in paragraphs [0085]-[0094], [0097]-[0104] and [0109].
With respect to claim 6, note again that this claim is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and fails to recite any additional structure necessary to perform that function. Thus, since Aoki teaches all of the structure as recited, it is capable of being operated in the manner recited and meets the claim language as broadly recited. Regardless, note Aoki teaches wherein an image forming condition is determined based on the information relating to the first recording medium P conveyed first and detected by the sensor 123, as described in paragraphs [0085], [0087], and [0107].
With respect to claim 7, note again that this claim is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and fails to recite any additional structure necessary to perform that function. Thus, since Aoki teaches all of the structure as recited, it is capable of being operated in the manner recited and meets the claim language as broadly recited. Regardless, note Aoki teaches wherein a time period for which the sensor 123 operates for the detection of the information relating to the second recording medium after the first recording medium is “different” from a time period for which the sensor operates for the detection of the information relating to the first recording medium. In particular, note that the sensor of Aoki operates to detect a first medium and then later operates to detect a second medium and therefore inherently the time period for one is different from the other as broadly recited.
With respect to claim 8, note again that this claim is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and fails to recite any additional structure necessary to perform that function. Thus, since Aoki teaches all of the structure as recited, it is capable of being operated in the manner recited and meets the claim language as broadly recited. Regardless, note Aoki teaches wherein the sensor 123 determines whether to perform detection of information relating to a recording medium after the first recording medium every time a recording medium is conveyed in accordance with a conveyance speed or every time a predetermined number of recording media are conveyed. See, in particular, paragraph [0107].
With respect to claim 9, Aoki teaches wherein the hardware processor 501, 502 also outputs the information relating to the first recording medium detected by the sensor 123, as described in paragraphs [0085], [0103]-[0104], and [0107] and shown in Figures 9-11 and 15A-15B.
With respect to claim 10, Aoki teaches wherein the hardware processor 501, 502 outputs the information relating to the second recording medium after the first recording medium to at least one of a printer driver display section of an information terminal connected to the image forming apparatus, a display section of the image forming apparatus, and an external server connected to the image forming apparatus, as described in paragraph [0041] and [0083].
With respect to claim 11, Aoki teaches wherein the hardware processor 501, 502 analyzes, based on a change in a result of the detection by the sensor 123, whether a recording medium P has been added. See paragraphs [0097]-[0101].
With respect to claim 12, to the extent that this claim is clear in meaning and scope, note this claim appears to be merely a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation of where the notification information is intended to be sent and fails to properly positively recite any additional structure of the image forming apparatus. Therefore, since Aoki teaches all of the structure as recited, including a hardware processor that outputs notification information and is capable of sending this information to any of a variety of different destinations, such as the printer driver, server or display, it meets the claim language.
With respect to claim 14, Aoki teaches a holder (i.e., cassette or tray) that is openable and closable with respect to the image forming apparatus 101 and holds the first and second recording media P; and
a storage section as described in paragraph [0111] that stores and updates an opening/closing history of the holder and a history of detection and update of the information relating to the first and second recording media in association with each other.
With respect to claim 15, note again that this claim is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and fails to recite any additional structure necessary to perform that function. Thus, since Aoki teaches all of the structure as recited, it is capable of being operated in the manner recited and meets the claim language as broadly recited. Regardless, note Aoki teaches wherein the sensor 123 performs detection of information relating to a recording medium P after the first recording medium a plurality of times at intervals in a single job, as described in paragraphs [0085], [0103]-[0104], and [0107] and shown in Figures 9-11 and 15A-15B.
With respect to claim 16, Aoki teaches a holder (i.e., a holder or cassette) that is openable and closable with respect to the image forming apparatus 10 1and holds the first and second recording media P,
wherein the sensor 123 performs detection of information relating to a recording medium P after the first recording medium a plurality of times until the holder is opened.
With respect to claim 17, note again that this claim is a functional recitation of a desired mode of operation and fails to recite any additional structure necessary to perform that function. Thus, since Aoki teaches all of the structure as recited, it is capable of being operated in the manner recited and meets the claim language as broadly recited. Regardless, note Aoki teaches wherein the sensor 123 performs detection of information relating to recording media P after the first recording medium P at least for a second recording medium P and a last recording medium P in a job, as described in paragraph [0107].
With respect to claim 18, Aoki teaches a storage section (see paragraph [0111]) that stores the information relating to the first and second recording media detected by the sensor 123,
wherein a request to acquire the information relating to the first and second recording media from the storage section is received from an external server (see paragraph [0041]).
With respect to claim 19, Aoki teaches a method for processing information relating to a recording medium, the method comprising:
causing a conveyance section to convey a first recording medium P and a second recording medium P;
causing a sensor 123 to detect information relating to the first recording medium P conveyed first and to detect information relating to the second recording medium P conveyed after the first recording medium; and
outputting the detected information relating to the second recording medium after the first recording medium; and
outputting notification information when the hardware processor detects the second recording medium after the first recording medium. See, in particular, Figures 9-15B and paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0054], [0071], [0074], and [0082]-[0111].
With respect to claim 20, Aoki teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a program for causing a computer of an image forming apparatus to execute processing of:
causing a conveyance section 103, 225 to convey a first recording medium P and a second recording medium P;
causing a sensor 123 to detect information relating to the first recording medium conveyed first and to detect information relating to the second recording medium conveyed after the first recording medium; and
outputting the detected information relating to the second recording medium after the first recording medium; and
outputting notification information when the hardware processor detects the second recording medium after the first recording medium. See, in particular, Figures 9-15B and paragraphs [0040], [0043], [0054], [0071], [0074], and [0082]-[0111].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 2007/0025745 A1) in view of Nemoto (US 2018/0275590 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Aoki teaches an image forming apparatus as recited with the possible exception of including the notification information being a pop up display on a display screen or a state notification display using an indicator. Nemoto teaches it is well known in the art to provide an image forming apparatus including detection of information (via media sensor 123) related to the recording medium, wherein the information is output as a pop up display or state notification. See, for example, display 170 and notifications as shown in Figures 11A-11B of Nemoto. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the notification information of Aoki to be displayed as taught by Nemoto to allow the user to better track the determination of the different types of paper being used in the image forming apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
With respect to claim 1 (which incorporates the previously recited subject matter of claim 12), applicant argues that Aoki fails to teach outputting notifications upon detection of the second recording medium after the first because Aoki instead teaches displaying an error message when no sheet is detected. The Examiner disagrees with this argument for the following reasons. In particular, it is noted that the language in claim 1 does not require a display but instead broadly recites that the processor “output notification information.” Aoki teaches a hardware processor that causes the sensor to detect information related to first and second recording mediums and then sets the operation conditions, drive conditions and the like for the image recording apparatus based on the result of the detected information. See, in particular, paragraphs [0082]-[0083]. Note Aoki describes the hardware processor and how it processes the sensor data more specifically in paragraphs [0063]-[0081]. Note that the processing of the sensor data in Aoki and resultant control/setting of the print conditions based upon the result of the processed sensor data would inherently require outputting of information that can be considered “notification information” in that would function to notify either the print controller per se or an operator of the image forming apparatus to set the desired print conditions based on the sensed data. Furthermore, note that Aoki teaches that the detection and operation to identify the recording materials can be performed for the first several sheets of a paper cassette, for each print job, or for every recording material independent of print job. See, for example, paragraphs [0085] and [0107]. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that Aoki teaches an image forming apparatus having the structure as recited including a hardware processor that causes the sensor to detect information relating to the first and second sheets and outputs notification information when the sensor detects the second recording medium after the first recording medium as broadly recited.
In view of this reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
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 LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853