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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 2-4 be found allowable, claims 5-7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: the value for roughness is missing units of measure, for the purposes of examination it will be understood to be µm). Appropriate correction 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 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.
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamoto et al. US 2021/0333725 (Nakamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamoto teaches an image forming system comprising:
an image carrying element (8) that is rotatably provided and carries an image (¶0040);
an image forming element (1) that forms the image on the image carrying element using an image forming material containing at least an external additive (¶0041);
a transfer element (70/80) that transfers the image carried by the image carrying element to a medium (¶0055);
a cleaning element (10) having a plate shape, the cleaning element being disposed so that a leading end comes into contact with the image carrying element (¶0044) while being inclined in a direction opposite to a rotation direction of the image carrying element (FIG. 3) to clean a residue remaining on the image carrying element after a transfer operation by the transfer element (¶0044);
a maintenance element (90) that forms, using the image forming element, a band-shaped maintenance image (bands that are crossed, R1 and R2) of the image forming material in a non-image formation region of the image carrying element (FIG. 5A, FIG. 5B), and regularly or irregularly supplies the maintenance image to the cleaning element in a state where the transfer operation by the transfer element is not performed;
a microparticle application element (30) that regularly or irregularly applies a microparticle having lubricity to the image carrying element (powder formed from brush and solid lubricant); and
a maintenance control element that controls an amount of the maintenance image by the maintenance element depending on an application state of the microparticle on the image carrying element (i.e., when the image forming apparatus is off and no lubricant is being deposited on the belt, the test patch is also NOT formed).
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto et al. US 2021/0333725 (Nakamoto) and Watanabe et al. US 2013/0071163 A1 (Watanabe).
Regarding claims 8-9, Nakamoto teaches the image forming system according to claim 1. Nakamoto differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the maintenance control element includes a detection element capable of detecting an application state of the microparticle. However this is known. Watanabe teaches the maintenance control element includes a detection element capable of detecting an application state of the microparticle (¶0057) and controls the amount of the maintenance image on the basis of a detection result of the detection element (¶0059-¶0062). Furthermore Watanabe teaches the detection element includes a reflective optical sensor disposed facing an application layer of the microparticle (detecting the presence of streaks, ¶0046). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the detection method taught by Watanabe with the device taught by Nakamoto since Watanabe teaches that by monitoring the amount of lubricant and adjusting it minimizes generation of abnormal images.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto et al. US 2021/0333725 (Nakamoto) and Ishio et al. US 2021/0302901 (Ishio).
Regarding claims 10-11, Nakamoto teaches the image forming system according to claim 1. Nakamoto differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the size of the pulverized particles of lubricant or the surface roughness of the intermediate transfer belt, leaving it to one skilled in the art to pursue the known options within his or her grasp. Ishio teaches the microparticle application element applies the microparticle (PTFE particles from solid lubricant 44, ¶0164) having a particle diameter within a range of 30 nm to 150 nm (120nm, ¶0142) onto the image carrying element having a surface roughness Rz of 1.5 or less (40 nm to 120 nm, which is less than 1.5 µ, ¶0142). Furthermore Ishio tach wherein the microparticle application element applies the microparticle to the image carrying element with a coverage in a range of 10% to 50% (i.e., 20 parts by weight, ¶0165). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the specifications taught by Ishio with the device taught by Nakamoto since Nakamoto is silent with regards to these specificatons, leaving it to one skilled in the art to pursue the known options within his or her grasp, of which the teaching of Ishio provides an exemplary teaching that would yield the predictable result of an image forming apparatus functioning with minimum fine particles pass through to the final image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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