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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: LUBRICANT USING FINE PARTICLES FOR IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM.
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.
Claim 12 in this application has been given the 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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura US 2013/0294791 A1 (Nakamura).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches an image forming system comprising:
an image holding unit (31) that is rotatably provided and that holds an image formed by means of a charged image forming material;
a transfer unit (36) that transfers the image hold by the image holding unit to a medium by using a transfer electric field;
a fine particle applying unit (37/51/52) that periodically or irregularly applies lubricant fine particles (the pulverized solid lubricant when deposited on the image holding unit is fine particles) to the image holding unit; and
a transfer control unit (120) that controls the transfer electric field of the transfer unit depending on a state of application of the fine particles on the image holding unit (¶0059, ¶0079).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the transfer control unit performs control such that the transfer electric field of the transfer unit differs between a condition in which the fine particles have been applied and a condition in which the fine particles have not been applied (i.e. optionally controlled, ¶0059).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 2, wherein the transfer control unit uses a coverage rate of the fine particles as an amount of application of the fine particles on a condition in which the fine particles have been applied and controls the transfer electric field of the transfer unit based on a relationship between the coverage rate of the fine particles and an adhesion force of the image with respect to the image holding unit (¶0076-¶0082).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the transfer control unit includes a detection unit (38A 38B, electrical potential sensors, ¶0066 or Line sensor 123, ¶0067) that detects the state of application of the fine particles and controls the transfer electric field of the transfer unit based on a result of detection performed by the detection unit (¶0066-¶0073).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 8, wherein the detection unit is composed of a reflection type optical sensor (line sensor 123_ that is disposed to face a layer of applied fine particles (¶0067).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the fine particle applying unit applies the fine particles to the image holding unit in a case where an embossed medium having unevenness on a surface of the medium is used (i.e. the detect surface roughness is falls within one of the 5 buckets listed for (max difference in roughness, Dmax of Table 0003).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura teaches an image forming system comprising:
image holding means (31) for holding an image formed by means of a charged image forming material (1C, 1Y, 1M, 1K)l, the image holding means being rotatably provided;
transferring means (33, 36) for transferring the image hold by the image holding means to a medium by using a transfer electric field;
fine particle applying means (37) for periodically or irregularly applying lubricant fine particles to the image holding means; and
transfer controlling means (120) for controlling the transfer electric field of the transferring means depending on a state of application of the fine particles on the image holding means (¶0059, ¶0079).
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura US 2013/0294791 A1 (Nakamura).
Regarding claim 3-6, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 2. Nakamura suggests that when the transfer control unit performs control such that the transfer electric field (transfer bias, ¶0057) of the transfer unit is made small on a condition in which the fine particles have been applied changing the transfer bias in comparison with a condition in which the fine particles have not been applied. While Nakamura does not explicitly teach the step-by-step method of changing the transfer electric field (transfer bias) when fine particles have not been applied, this is suggested. Nakamura teaches calculating the transfer rate under the condition that the transfer bias is constant at -42 µA, the toner weight, surface roughness and amount of lubricant are then bucketized as sown in Table 0003. Further Nakamura teaches that the transfer bias along with the lubricant determine the amount of toner adhesion (¶0077-¶0079), thus suggesting the transfer bias is a variable that can be adjusted along with the amount of lubricant applied. Given this teaching it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when no amount of lubricant is applied the transfer bias would need to be increased.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 4. Furthermore Nakamura teaches a first and second and third and fourth threshold (see Table 0003). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the transfer electric field (transfer bias) in a case where the amount of application of the fine particles is smaller than a first threshold value determined in advance, the transfer control unit performs control such that the transfer electric field of the transfer unit is made equal to the transfer electric field formed on a condition in which the fine particles have not been applied, AND in a case where the amount of application of the fine particles exceeds a second threshold value determined in advance, the transfer control unit performs control such that the transfer electric field of the transfer unit is made large in comparison with a case where the amount of application of the fine particles is equal to or smaller than the second threshold value, SINCE Nakamura teaches that the transfer bias along with the lubricant determine the amount of toner adhesion (¶0077-¶0079), thus suggesting the transfer bias is a variable that can be adjusted along with the amount of lubricant applied.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura US 2013/0294791 A1 (Nakamura) and Tsuruoka et al. US 6,141,522 (Tsuruoka).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura teaches the image forming system according to claim 1, the image holding unit having a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 or less (recording sheet A or B, Table 0001). Nakamura differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the size of the fine particles. Tsuruoka teaches the fine particles of which a particle size falls within a range of 0.01µm - 10 µm (10 nm – 10,000 nm) thus anticipating the range of 30 to 150 nm (C12 L49-63). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to look toward the prior art for size of pulverized lubricant particles being applied to the transfer belt, of which Tsuruoka teaches that the range of 30 to 150 nm was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person skilled in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ichikawa et al. US 2014/0241744 teaches a transfer device for controlling transfer pressure and bias and suggests using a lubricating material as well (¶0095).
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
Prosecution Insights