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 .
In amendments dated 05/13/2026, applicant(s) amended claims 1 – 6, 9 and 10; and cancelled claims 7 – 8. Claims 1 – 6, 9 and 10 are now pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks on page 7 the applicant notes that the title have been amended to overcome the prior objections. In view of the amendments to the title the prior objections regarding the title is hereby withdrawn.
In the Remarks on page 7 the Applicant notes that claims 1, 2 and 4 - 7 have been amended to overcome the prior 35 USC §112 (f) interpretations. In view of the amendments the prior 35 USC §112 (f) interpretations are hereby withdrawn.
In the Remarks on pages 8 - 10 the Applicant notes that claims 1, 9 and 10 have been amended to overcome the prior 35 USC §101 judicial rejections. In view of the amendments and updated Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (January 7th, 2019) the prior 35 USC §101 judicial rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 3 and 8 - 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2016/0162762 A1, hereinafter ‘Maeda’).
With respect to claim 1, Maeda taches an image forming apparatus (i.e., an image forming apparatus/printing apparatus, Figs. 1 & 2) comprising: a printer (e.g., printer engine 150, Fig. 1); a scanner (e.g., a scanner unit 130, ¶0094); a conveyance path (i.e., a conveyance path, ¶0082); a sensor (e.g., sensor means, ¶0094) on the conveyance path a detection unit configured to detect, from paper, paper information that reflects a feature of the paper (e.g., configured to detect, from sheet, sheet information that feature characteristics of the sheet, ¶0082); and a controller (e.g., a CPU 114, ¶0030, ¶0039, Fig. 1) that specifies a first print control parameter based on a value obtained by detecting, using the sensor, a feature of a sheet being conveyed on the conveyance path (e.g., that defines physical property or grammage by detecting, using said sensor means, characteristics of a sheet being conveyed, Fig. 9, ¶0007, ¶0088, ¶0142), wherein the printer prints a chart on the conveyed sheet, the chart corresponding to the specified first print control parameter (e.g., print a chart on the conveyed sheet, the chart corresponds to the defined physical property or grammage, ¶0030), wherein the scanner scans the sheet on which the chart is printed (e.g., scan the printed chart, ¶0030, ¶0106 - ¶0107), and wherein the controller registers sheet information based on the specified first print control parameter and a second print control parameter specified based on the scan of the sheet (e.g., register new information based on the defined physical property or grammage and parameter based on the scan of the sheet, ¶0096 - ¶0097, Fig. 9).
With respect to claim 2, Maeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the sensor detects the feature of the sheet after conveyance of the sheet is started before the chart is printed on the sheet (e.g., the sensor means is configured to detect the sheet after the sheet is fed (loaded) and before the sheet is printed, ¶0007, ¶0088, ¶0150).
With respect to claim 5, Maeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising: a display, wherein the controller displays an object for inputting a name of the sheet information on the display after the scan of the sheet (Fig. 5B).
With respect to claim 9, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1.
With respect to claim 10, Maeda notes that the inventions may be realized through the execution of a CPU (e.g., a CPU 114, ¶0041 and ¶0204) of instruction codes (e.g., programs, ¶0041 and ¶0204) stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a RAM, ¶0041 and ¶0204). The further limitations are met by the teaching as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Kamiya et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0283532 A1, hereinafter ‘Kamiya’).
With respect to claim 3, Maeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first print control parameter is a parameter of basis weight (Fig. 4), but fails to tech wherein the second print control parameter is a parameter of secondary transfer voltage.
However, in the same field of endeavor of detecting type of sheet, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kamiya. In particular, Kamiya teaches wherein the second print control parameter is a parameter of secondary transfer voltage (e.g., wherein a first parameter is related to basis weight (grammage) and a second parameter is related to secondary transfer voltage (V), ¶0023, ¶0075, ¶0119, Fig. 7A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image forming apparatus of Maeda as taught by Kamiya since Kamiya suggested within ¶0023, ¶0075, ¶0119 and Fig. 7 A that such modification of having a secondary transfer voltage would prevent a sheet conveyance defect such as a jam from occurring due to improper setting of sheet type during execution of image forming processing. Further, sheet type setting mode is automatically switched without troubling a user of the image forming apparatus, and therefore it is possible to prevent an issue caused by addition of sheets without decreasing convenience; thereby improving convenience for users to facilitate in user operation(s).
With respect to claim 4, Maeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the controller specifies, based on the scan of the sheet, a parameter of secondary transfer voltage and a parameter of image position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of detecting type of sheet, the aforementioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Kamiya. In particular, Kamiya teaches wherein the controller specifies, based on the scan of the sheet, a parameter of secondary transfer voltage and a parameter of image position (e.g., set parameter of secondary transfer voltage and position based a result of scanning, Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image forming apparatus of Maeda as taught by Kamiya since Kamiya suggested within ¶0023, ¶0075, ¶0119 and Fig. 8 that such modification of having an image positioning would prevent a sheet conveyance defect such as a jam from occurring due to improper setting of sheet type during execution of image forming processing. Further, sheet type setting mode is automatically switched without troubling a user of the image forming apparatus, and therefore it is possible to prevent an issue caused by addition of sheets without decreasing convenience; thereby improving convenience for users to facilitate in user operation(s).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Yokoya et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2020/0189868 A1, hereinafter ‘Yokoya’).
With respect to claim 6, Maeda teaches the image forming apparatus according to Claim 5, wherein the controller displays a screen including the object, and wherein the screen includes an object for registering the sheet information; but fails to teach registering as a frequently used sheet.
However, this feature is a conventional print setting for saving/storing/registering setting for future usage, where Yokoya teaches registering as a frequently used sheet (e.g., it’s simply registering the sheet information as frequently usage; conventional setting in print settings, ¶0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the image forming apparatus of Maeda as taught by Yokoya since Yokoya suggested in ¶0030 that such modification would be convenient to register the paper information as frequently usage in order to allow users to recognize the setting most used in common; thereby avoiding confusion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tachibana (U.S PG Publication No. 2015/0036172 A1)1
Ito (U.S Patent No. 10,359,973 B2)2
1This reference teaches a print setting screen to allow users to register sheet information as frequently used paper.
the printing device that detects an open state of a cover; after detecting the state of the cover, moving images or plurality of operation procedures are displayed when a failure (malfunction) is detected and requires the user to open the cover and inputs in order to fix the failure.
2This reference teaches an image forming apparatus configured to print a chart, scan the printed chat and display a screen to allow user to edit setting in order to be registered.
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 JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 Q 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights