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 07/29/2026 and RCE filed on 08/26/2026, applicant(s) amended claims 1 and 2; cancelled claims 9 and 10; and added new claims 11 – 13. Claims 1 – 6 and 11 – 13 are now pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 6 and 11 - 13 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 § 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.
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 1, 2, 5 and 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2016/0162762 A1, hereinafter ‘Maeda’) in view of Mizuno (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2018/0288259 A1, hereinafter ‘Mizuno’) and further in view of Date (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2020/0391516 A1, hereinafter ‘Date’).
With respect to claim 1, Maeda taches an image forming apparatus (i.e., an image forming apparatus/printing apparatus, Figs. 1 & 2) comprising: a feeding tray (e.g., a feeding unit 140, ¶0037); a conveyance path (e.g., conveyance path, ¶0076, ¶0082); 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 scanner (e.g., a scanner, ¶0030, ¶0079); 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); but fails to teach (a) that said printer print an image on a sheet being conveyed via the conveyance path from the feeding tray; that said controller is a controller that specifies a first print control parameter based on a value obtained by detecting, using the sensor, the feature of the sheet, wherein said printer prints a chart on the same sheet; and (b) that said feature of the sheet is detected while conveying from said feeding tray; and said feature is detected by a sensor.
However, with respect to above difference (a) and in the same field of endeavor of printing image(s) and chart(s), sensor(s) and conveyance path, Mizuno teaches a printer that prints an image on a sheet being conveyed via the conveyance path (e.g., forms mark(s) on a sheet being conveyed from at least storage part 110a/110b, abstract, Fig. 1, ¶0025, ¶0030, ¶0055 - ¶0056); a sensor (e.g., sensor, ¶0026) detects a feature of a sheet (e.g. said sensor sensing attribute data of a sheet, ¶0122, Fig. 1); and a controller that specifies a first print control parameter based on a value obtained by detecting, using the sensor, wherein the printer prints a chart on the same sheet being conveyed via the conveyance path from the feeding tray (e.g., identifying parameter based on a value read by sensing the attribute data of the sheet, wherein the printer also print a chart on said sheet being conveyed, ¶0033, ¶0043, ¶0048, ¶0068, ¶0088, Figs. 4 & 5).
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 Mizuno since Mizuno suggested in ¶0033, ¶0043, ¶0048, ¶0068, ¶0088 and Figs. 4 & 5 that such modification of printing marks (images) and chart on same sheet would prevent duplicate reading of charts in different sheets; thereby to save resources.
Maeda, modified by Mizuno, fails to teach above difference (b). However, Date teaches a sensor (e.g., media sensor, ¶0087 - ¶0090) detecting a feature of a sheet being conveyed from a feeding tray (e.g., detecting/determining a type of a sheet being conveyed from a feed tray, ¶0084 - ¶0089).
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 in view of Mizuno as taught by Date since Date suggested in ¶0084 - ¶0089 that such modification of detecting a property (feature, detail or characteristic) of a conveying sheet from a feeder would directly compare the properties between the one from the table (database) and said conveying sheet in order to calibrate and improve image quality of image formed.
With respect to claim 2, Maeda in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Date teaches the sensor detects the feature of the sheet from the feeding tray 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 from the feed tray after the sheet is fed (loaded) and before the chart is printed, ¶0090).
With respect to claim 5, Maeda in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date 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 11, Maeda in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller registers the sheet information as user-defined sheet information in a sheet database (e.g., register new information into database (table), ¶0097; also Mizuno teaches executing new registration or update of attribute data previously registered to a sheet management table 400, ¶0051).
With respect to claim 12, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the apparatus claim 1. In addition, Maeda or Mizuno teaches registering new information for tables.
With respect to claim 13, 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.
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 in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date 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 in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date 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 in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date 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 in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date 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 Mizuno and further in view of Date in view of Yokoya et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2020/0189868 A1, hereinafter ‘Yokoya’).
With respect to claim 6, Maeda in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date 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 in view of Mizuno and further in view of Date 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 or making it advantage for the user to utilize the most used setting.
Conclusion
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