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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 July 2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 23, 24, 30, 32, and 34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record. Specifically, see the citation of the Ohishi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0381554) reference in the rejection that follows. However, the Examiner further notes that applicant’s argument (see Arguments at 11-12) regarding the Maejima reference are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant alleges that Maejima’s sensors “are NOT arranged on a conveyance path for conveying a sheet fed from the paper feed unit.” Id. at 12. However, Figure 6B, paragraphs [0068] [0090], [0134], [0138] of Maejima discloses paper thickness detection sensor 21 as disposed on the conveying path— e.g., in paragraph [0090], Maejima notes that the “paper thickness detection sensor 21 of FIG. 6B is a contact sensor and includes a lever portion 216 that is held at an upper side of the conveying path (“PATH” in FIG. 6B. Consequently, applicant’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. See the rejection below for more detail.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 25-29, 31, and 33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 25-29, 31, and 33, applicant argues that Nakamura fails to disclose “a hardware processor that determines a detection content of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the media sensor according to at least one of a type of a device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system, a connection position of the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system, and a selected function" as claimed. See Arguments, pages 13-14. Applicant acknowledges that Nakamura discloses “determining whether post-processing can be performed based on information regarding a sheet size,” but attempts to distinguish the instant invention by alleging that it “does not determine a detection content of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the media sensor”.
Initially, it is noted that Maejima is cited in the rejection as disclosing a sheet characteristic detection device that includes a media sensor capable of detecting information corresponding to the sheet characteristic (see pages 8-9 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 7 April 2026, citing paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138] of Maejima). Applicant does not rebut that Maejima discloses the features it is cited for; instead, applicant solely argues regarding the Nakamura reference. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, Nakamura explicitly discloses the CPU calculating the sheet size as part of a post-processing operation determination (see paragraphs [0062]-[0063] of Nakamura)— applicant does not provide a reason why this disclosure does not constitute “determine a detection content of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the media sensor”. The instant specification does not define either “detection content” (the Examiner notes the term “detection content” does not appear at all in the specification and the description of the “detection” does nothing to preclude the disclosure of the cited combination of Maejima and Nakamura from disclosing that “detection”), “sheet characteristic” (note that paragraph [0064] explicitly notes that “the present invention is not limited thereto” regarding the types of characteristics), or the “media sensor” (see for example paragraph[0025] expressly noting that the ”media sensor [is] not limited to the example illustrated” and paragraphs [0163], [0170] expressly leaving open-ended what can constitute a “media sensor”). In the absence of any definition limiting any of the terms in the limitation at issue (and, to the contrary, ample form-language emphasizing the expansive construction of these terms), applicant’s argument that the cited combination does not disclose the recited features is not persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in
condition for allowance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 30, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0336748) in view of Ohishi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0381554).
Regarding claim 1, Maejima (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0336748) discloses:
A sheet characteristic detection system that detects a sheet characteristic, comprising:
a sheet characteristic detection device that is capable of detecting a plurality types of different sheet characteristics, the sheet characteristic detection being arranged on a sheet conveyance path for conveyance a sheet fed from a sheet feeding device (Figure 6B, paragraphs [0068] [0090], [0134], [0138], for example, paper thickness detection sensor 21 is disposed on the conveying path; the system also includes a paper size detection unit and a paper set detection unit ); and
a hardware processor that is capable of determining a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device among the plurality types of different sheet characteristics (see, for example, Figure 14, paragraphs [0193]-[0199], while the paper size continues to be detected, the system can opt to not measure thickness of the sheet if it is unnecessary to do so)
Even assuming arguendo that Maejima does not disclose:
A sheet characteristic detection device that is capable of detecting a plurality types of sheet characteristics
Ohishi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0381554) discloses:
A sheet characteristic detection device that is capable of detecting a plurality types of sheet characteristics (paragraph [0021], detection device is capable of both paper size and thickness detection)
a hardware processor that is capable of determining a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device among the plurality types of different sheet characteristics (paragraphs [0021], [0062]-[0065], the detection device is controlled in conjunction with the controller to determine size and thickness as described)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ohishi with the system of Maejima such that the system would have been configured to incorporate a device detecting a plurality types of sheet characteristics as described in Ohishi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether a disparity in sizes is occurring to the sheet or a fed-with-overlap error is occurring to the sheet, based on the thickness of the sheet detected by the thickness sensor” (paragraph [0005] of the Ohishi reference).
Regarding claim 2, Maejima additionally discloses:
the hardware processor can change a combination of the sheet characteristics to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device (see, for example, Figure 14, paragraphs [0193]-[0199], while the paper size continues to be detected, the system can opt to not measure thickness of the sheet if it is unnecessary to do so)
Regarding claim 3, Maejima additionally discloses:
wherein the sheet characteristic detection device is capable of detecting information corresponding to a plurality of sheet characteristics among the size, the rigidity, the resistance, the moisture content, the surface property, and the thickness of the sheet (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor detect size and thickness of the sheet)
Regarding claim 12, Maejima additionally discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect information corresponding to at least two or more sheet characteristics among a size, rigidity, resistance, a moisture content, a surface property, and a thickness of the sheet when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to an image forming device (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor detect size and thickness of the sheet; the sensors are integrated into a printing/image forming apparatus – see paragraph [0034])
Regarding claim 30, the device of claim 30 is analogous to the disclosed system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected for reasons analogous to those described in regards to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 32, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as described in claim 19 of the Maejima reference.
Regarding claim 34, Maejima discloses:
An image forming system comprising:
an image forming device that forms an image on a sheet (the sensors are integrated into a printing/image forming apparatus – see paragraph [0034]); and
a sheet characteristic detection device that detects a sheet characteristic, wherein the sheet characteristic detection device includes:
a sheet characteristic detection device that is capable of detecting a plurality types of different sheet characteristics, the sheet characteristic detection being arranged on a sheet conveyance path for conveyance a sheet fed from a sheet feeding device; (Figure 6B, paragraphs [0068] [0090], [0134], [0138], for example, paper thickness detection sensor 21 is disposed on the conveying path; the system also includes a paper size detection unit and a paper set detection unit ); and
a hardware processor that is capable of determining a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device among the plurality types of different sheet characteristics (see, for example, Figure 14, paragraphs [0193]-[0199], while the paper size continues to be detected, the system can opt to not measure thickness of the sheet if it is unnecessary to do so)
Even assuming arguendo that Maejima does not disclose:
A sheet characteristic detection device that is capable of detecting a plurality types of sheet characteristics
Ohishi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0381554) discloses:
A sheet characteristic detection device that is capable of detecting a plurality types of sheet characteristics (paragraph [0021], detection device is capable of both paper size and thickness detection)
a hardware processor that is capable of determining a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device among the plurality types of different sheet characteristics (paragraphs [0021], [0062]-[0065], the detection device is controlled in conjunction with the controller to determine size and thickness as described)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ohishi with the system of Maejima such that the system would have been configured to incorporate a device detecting a plurality types of sheet characteristics as described in Ohishi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether a disparity in sizes is occurring to the sheet or a fed-with-overlap error is occurring to the sheet, based on the thickness of the sheet detected by the thickness sensor” (paragraph [0005] of the Ohishi reference).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Maejima and Ohishi discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Maejima additionally discloses:
wherein the sheet characteristic detection device includes a plurality of media sensors corresponding to the plurality types of different sheet characteristics (Figure 6B, paragraphs [0068] [0090], [0134], [0138], for example, paper thickness detection sensor 21 is disposed on the conveying path; the system also includes a paper size detection unit and a paper set detection unit );
Even assuming arguendo that Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the sheet characteristic detection device includes a plurality of media sensors corresponding to the plurality types of different sheet characteristics.
Ohishi additionally discloses:
wherein the sheet characteristic detection device includes a plurality of media sensors corresponding to the plurality types of different sheet characteristics (paragraph [0021], detection device is capable of both paper size and thickness detection)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ohishi with the system of Maejima such that the sheet characteristic detection device includes a plurality of media sensors corresponding to the plurality types of different sheet characteristics.as described in Ohishi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether a disparity in sizes is occurring to the sheet or a fed-with-overlap error is occurring to the sheet, based on the thickness of the sheet detected by the thickness sensor” (paragraph [0005] of the Ohishi reference).
Claim(s) 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0336748) in view of Ohishi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0381554), further in view of Nakamura (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0044468).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maejima and Ohishi discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Maejima additionally discloses:
wherein the hardware processor changes a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a selected function (see, for example, Figure 14, paragraphs [0193]-[0199], while the paper size continues to be detected, the system can opt to not measure thickness of the sheet if it is unnecessary to do so)-
Even assuming arguendo Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the hardware processor changes a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a selected function
Nakamura (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0044468) discloses:
wherein the hardware processor changes a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a selected function (paragraphs [0062]-[0063], depending on the stored relation for the particular post processing, the target changes for comparison of the sheet size)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Nakamura with the combination of Maejima and Ohishi such that the system would have been configured to change a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a selected function as described in Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether post-processing can be performed based on the feeding sheet size, the calculated sheet size, and a sheet size for which the…post processing can be performed” (paragraph [0062] of the Nakamura reference) and thereby enhance efficiency of operations.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maejima, Ohishi, and Nakamura discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 4).
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the hardware processor changes the type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a type of a post-processing function set in a job.
Nakamura discloses:
wherein the hardware processor changes the type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a type of a post-processing function set in a job (paragraphs [0062]-[0063], depending on the stored relation for the particular post processing, the target changes for comparison of the sheet size)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Nakamura with the combination of Maejima and Ohishi such that the system would have been configured to change the type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a type of a post-processing function set in a job as described in Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether post-processing can be performed based on the feeding sheet size, the calculated sheet size, and a sheet size for which the…post processing can be performed” (paragraph [0062] of the Nakamura reference) and thereby enhance efficiency of operations.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maejima and Ohishi discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the hardware processor changes the type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device according to at least one of: a type of a device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system; and a connection position of the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system.
Nakamura discloses:
wherein the hardware processor changes the type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device according to at least one of: a type of a device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system (paragraphs [0062]-[0063], depending on the stored relation for the particular post processing, the target changes for comparison of the sheet size); and a connection position of the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Nakamura with the combination of Maejima and Ohishi such that the system would have been configured to change the type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device according to a type of a device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system as described in Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether post-processing can be performed based on the feeding sheet size, the calculated sheet size, and a sheet size for which the…post processing can be performed” (paragraph [0062] of the Nakamura reference) and thereby enhance efficiency of operations.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maejima and Ohishi discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
the hardware processor changes a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device according to a type of a post-processing device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device
Nakamura discloses:
the hardware processor changes a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device according to a type of a post-processing device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device (paragraphs [0062]-[0063], depending on the stored relation for the particular post processing, the target changes for comparison of the sheet size);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Nakamura with the combination of Maejima and Ohishi of Maejima such that the system would have been configured to change a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the sheet characteristic detection device according to a type of a post-processing device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device as described in Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether post-processing can be performed based on the feeding sheet size, the calculated sheet size, and a sheet size for which the…post processing can be performed” (paragraph [0062] of the Nakamura reference) and thereby enhance efficiency of operations.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima in view of Ohishi and Nakamura, in further view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0234803).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maejima, Ohishi, and Nakamura discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 7).
As previously noted, Maejima discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect at least one of a size, rigidity, and a thickness of the sheet (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor detect size and thickness of the sheet)
The combination of Maejima and Nakamura does not explicitly disclose:
when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a cutter that cuts the sheet.
Kobayashi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0234803) discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect at least one of a size, rigidity, and a thickness of the sheet (paragraph [0049], the controller uses the sensor to detect the length of the paper) when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a cutter that cuts the sheet (paragraph [0055]-[0057], the determined length is used to compute the cutting position)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kobayashi with the combination of Maejima, Ohishi, and Nakamura such that the system would have been configured to detect size when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a cutter that cuts the sheet as described in Kobayashi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “cutting a printing medium to a desired size” (paragraph [0004] of the Kobayashi reference).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maejima, Ohishi, Nakamura, and Kobayashi disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 8).
The combination of Maejima and Nakamura does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the hardware processor adjusts at least one of a cutting position and a cutting time of the sheet in the cutter based on a detection result of the sheet characteristic detection device.
Kobayashi discloses:
wherein the hardware processor adjusts at least one of a cutting position and a cutting time of the sheet in the cutter based on a detection result of the sheet characteristic detection device (paragraph [0055]-[0057], the determined length is used to compute the cutting position)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kobayashi with the combination of Maejima, Ohishi, and Nakamura such that the system would have been configured to adjust a cutting position of the sheet in the cutter based on a detection result of the sheet characteristic detection device as described in Kobayashi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “cutting a printing medium to a desired size” (paragraph [0004] of the Kobayashi reference).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima in view of Ohishi and Nakamura in further view of Monden (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0297018).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maejima, Ohishi and Nakamura discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 7).
Maejima discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect at least one of rigidity, a thickness, and a moisture content of the sheet (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor detect size and thickness of the sheet)
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a device capable of performing binding processing or punching processing.
Monden (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0297018) discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect at least one of rigidity, a thickness, and a moisture content of the sheet when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a device capable of performing binding processing or punching processing (paragraphs [0095], the moisture content of the sheet is determined; paragraph [0096] the device performing a punching job)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Monden with the combination of Maejima, Ohishi and Nakamura such that the sheet characteristic detection device detected at least one of rigidity, a thickness, and a moisture content of the sheet when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a device capable of performing punching processing as described in Monden. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “enabl[ing] punching processing to be performed at an appropriate position in a conveyed sheet regardless of the surface property of the sheet (paragraph [0006] of the Monden reference).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima in view of Ohishi and Nakamura in further view of Ogushi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0076087)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Maejima, Ohishi and Nakamura discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 7).
Maejima discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect at least one of rigidity, a thickness, and a moisture content of the sheet (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor detect size and thickness of the sheet)
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a folding processing device.
Ogushi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0076087) discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect at least one of rigidity, a thickness, and a moisture content of the sheet when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a folding processing device (paragraph [0086], sheet rigidity is detected in the context of a folding job)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ogushi with the combination of Maejima, Ohishi and Nakamura such that the system would have been configured to detect at least one of rigidity, a thickness, and a moisture content of the sheet when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to a folding processing device as described. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of ensuring that “the quality of the post-processing operation…is secured” (paragraph [0086] of the Ogushi reference).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima and Ohishi, further in view of Monden.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Maejima and Ohishi discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Maejima discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect information corresponding to at least one of a size, rigidity, resistance, a surface property, and a thickness of the sheet when the sheet characteristic detection device is connected to an image forming device (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor detect size and thickness of the sheet)
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect information corresponding to a moisture content of the sheet
Monden discloses:
wherein the hardware processor causes the sheet characteristic detection device to detect information corresponding to a moisture content of the sheet (paragraphs [0095], the moisture content of the sheet is determined)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Monden with the combination of Maejima and Ohishi such that the sheet characteristic detection device would detect information corresponding to a moisture content of the sheet as described in Monden. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “enabl[ing] punching processing to be performed at an appropriate position in a conveyed sheet regardless of the surface property of the sheet (paragraph [0006] of the Monden reference).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima and Ohishi, further in view of Shin et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0022271).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Maejima and Ohishi discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Maejima does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the hardware processor changes a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to whether the sheet fed from the sheet feeding device is a first sheet or a second or subsequent sheet fed in a job.
Shin et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0022271):
wherein the hardware processor changes a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to whether the sheet fed from the sheet feeding device is a first sheet or a second or subsequent sheet fed in a job (paragraph [0078], for the first page of the job, the thickness is detected but only the registration sensor is used afterwards)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Shin with the combination of Maejima and Ohishi such that the system would change a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to whether the sheet fed from the sheet feeding device is a first sheet or a second or subsequent sheet fed in a job as described in Shin. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable allowing a sensor “to perform [a] plurality of functions such as determining the type of print paper and performing the registration job, thereby reducing manufacturing costs” (paragraph [0079] of the Shin reference) while still maximizing throughput.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Maejima, Ohishi, and Shin disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 23).
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the hardware processor detects all types of sheet characteristics detectable by the sheet characteristic detection device when the sheet fed is the first sheet, and detects only some types of sheet characteristics when the sheet fed is the second or subsequent sheet.
Shin discloses:
wherein the hardware processor detects all types of sheet characteristics detectable by the sheet characteristic detection device when the sheet fed is the first sheet, and detects only some types of sheet characteristics when the sheet fed is the second or subsequent sheet (paragraph [0078], for the first sheet, the sensor performs both detection functions, but for subsequent sheets, the sensor only senses registration)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Shin with the s combination of Maejima and Ohishi such that the system would detects all types of sheet characteristics corresponding to the plurality of media sensors when the sheet fed is the first sheet, and detect only some types of sheet characteristics when the sheet fed is the second or subsequent sheet as described in Shin. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable allowing a sensor “to perform [a] plurality of functions such as determining the type of print paper and performing the registration job, thereby reducing manufacturing costs” (paragraph [0079] of the Shin reference) while still maximizing throughput.
Claim(s) 25-29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2017/0336748) in view of Nakamura (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2014/0044468).
Regarding claim 25, Maejima discloses:
A sheet characteristic detection system that detects a sheet characteristic, comprising:
a sheet characteristic detection device that includes a media sensor capable of detecting information corresponding to the sheet characteristic (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor);
Maejima does not explicitly disclose:
a hardware processor that determines a detection content of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the media sensor according to at least one of a type of a device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system, a connection position of the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system, and a selected function.
Nakamura discloses:
a hardware processor that determines a detection content of the sheet characteristic to be detected by the media sensor according to at least one of a type of a device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system, a connection position of the sheet characteristic detection device in the sheet characteristic detection system, and a selected function (paragraphs [0062]-[0063], depending on the stored relation for the particular post processing, the target changes for comparison of the sheet size)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Nakamura with the system of Maejima such that the system would have been configured to change a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected according to a selected function as described in Nakamura. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “determin[ing] whether post-processing can be performed based on the feeding sheet size, the calculated sheet size, and a sheet size for which the…post processing can be performed” (paragraph [0062] of the Nakamura reference) and thereby enhance efficiency of operations.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Maejima and Nakamura disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 25).
Maejima additionally discloses:
the hardware processor can determine a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected, a detection range of the sheet characteristic to be detected, or detection processing as the detection content of the sheet characteristic (see, for example, Figure 14, paragraphs [0193]-[0199], while the paper size continues to be detected, the system can opt to not measure thickness of the sheet if it is unnecessary to do so)
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Maejima and Nakamura disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 25).
Maejima additionally discloses:
the sheet characteristic detection device includes a plurality of media sensors (paragraphs [0068], [0134], [0138], paper size sensor and paper thickness sensor); corresponding to a plurality of different sheet characteristics, and the hardware processor is capable of changing a type of the sheet characteristic to be detected (see, for example, Figure 14, paragraphs [0193]-[0199], while the paper size continues to be detected, the system can opt to not measure thickness of the sheet if it is unnecessary to do so)
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Maejima and Nakamura disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 27).
Maejima additionally discloses:
the hardware processor is capable of changing a combination of the sheet characteristics to be detected by the plurality of media sensors (see, for example, Figure 14, paragraphs [0193]-[0199], while the paper size continues to be detected, the system can opt to not measure thickness of the sheet if it is unnecessary to do so)
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Maejima and Nakamura disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 25).
Maejima additionally discloses:
a device connected to the sheet characteristic detection device is a device in which the media sensor included in the sheet characteristic detection device can be disposed (the sensors are integrated into a printing/image forming apparatus – see paragraph [0034])
Regarding claim 31, the device of claim 31 is analogous to the disclosed system of claim 25. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected for reasons analogous to those described in regards to claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 33, arguments analogous to claim 25 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as described in claim 19 of the Maejima reference.
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 JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights