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 .
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/593,737 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Although the claims are substantially duplicate from each other, the instant application claims that the control is done with either the first or the second reader onto the other reader whereas the copending application is more specific in that the first reader controls the second AND (emphasis added) the second reader controls the first. This is an obvious variant of the instant application in that either reader can control the other whereas it would be obvious to have both controls occurring in certain situations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/427,665
18/593,737
1. An image forming system comprising:
an image former that forms an image on a recording medium;
a first reader that is disposed upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium; and
a second reader that is disposed downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium, wherein one of the first reader and the second reader is controlled based on a result of reading the recording medium in the other of the first reader and the second reader.
1. An image forming system comprising:
an image former that forms an image on a recording medium;
a first reader that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium; and
a second reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium, wherein the first reader controls the second reader based on a reading result of the first reader, and
the second reader controls the first reader based on a reading result of the second reader.
Claims 2, 8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2, 5, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/593,747 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims are substantially duplicate from each other, the instant application claims a second reader whereas the copending application claims a determiner and a controller for controlling the first reader and detector. This is an obvious variant of the instant application in that a determiner can function as the second reader and a controller can be used to control the readers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/593,747
18/593,737
2. An image forming system comprising:
an image former that forms an image on a recording medium;
a detector that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and detects a physical property of the recording medium;
a first reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium; and
a determiner that determines an abnormality of at least one of the detector or the first reader based on a detection result of the detector and a reading result of the first reader,
a controller for controlling at least one of the first reader or the detector based on the abnormality determination.
5. The image forming system according to claim 2, wherein the first reader is controlled based on the detection result of the detector, and
the detector is controlled based on the reading result of the first reader.
7. A method of controlling an image forming system including an image former that forms an image on a recording medium,
a detector that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and detects a physical property of the recording medium,
a first reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium, and
a controller for controlling at least one of the first reader or the detector based on an abnormality determination,
the method comprising:
detecting, by the detector, a physical property of a recording medium on which no image is formed;
forming an image on the recording medium by the image former;
reading, by the first reader, the recording medium on which the image is formed;
and determining an abnormality of at least one of the detector or the first reader based on a detection result of the detector and a reading result of the first reader.
2. An image forming system comprising:
an image former that forms an image on a recording medium;
a first reader that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium;
a second reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium; and
a determiner that determines an abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a reading result of the first reader and a reading result of the second reader.
8. The image forming system according to claim 2, wherein
the first reader controls the second reader based on the reading result of the first reader, and
the second reader controls the first reader based on the reading result of the second reader.
10. A method of controlling an image forming system including an image former that forms an image on a recording medium,
a first reader that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium, and
a second reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium,
the method comprising:
reading a recording medium on which no image is formed by the first reader;
forming an image on the recording medium by the image former;
reading the recording medium on which the image is formed by the second reader;
and determining an abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a reading result of the first reader and a reading result of the second reader.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami (US 2009/0086295).
Regarding Claim 2, Murakami teaches an image forming system (Paragraph 2) comprising:
an image former that forms an image on a recording medium (Paragraph 25, wherein there is a color printer unit);
a first reader that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 810 and paragraph 60, wherein there is a media sensor);
a second reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 70 and paragraph 39, wherein there is a color sensor provided after the image forming); and
a determiner that determines an abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a reading result of the first reader and a reading result of the second reader (Paragraphs 66-70, wherein based on the results it is determined how to correct the print data, which would correspond to an abnormality).
Regarding Claim 5, Murakami further teaches a fixer that fixes the image formed by the image former to the recording medium (Element 80 and paragraph 39, wherein there is a fixing device), wherein
the second reader reads the recording medium after fixing by the fixer (Fig. 1, wherein element 70 is after the fixing device), and
the determiner determines the abnormality of the second reader based on the size of the recording medium based on the reading result of the first reader and a size of the recording medium based on the reading result of the second reader (Paragraphs 66-70, wherein based on the results it is determined how to correct the print data, which would correspond to an abnormality. The properties can include size).
Regarding Claim 6, Murakami further teaches wherein the determiner determines the abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a color of the recording medium based on the reading result of the first reader or a color of the recording medium based on the reading result of the second reader (Paragraphs 66-70, wherein based on the results it is determined how to correct the print data, which would correspond to an abnormality).
Regarding Claim 7, Murakami further teaches wherein the second reader reads the recording medium on which the image is formed by the image former (Paragraph 39, wherein there is a color sensor provided after the image forming), and
the determiner determines the abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on image data of the image formed by the image former, a color based on the reading result of the first reader, and a color based on the reading result of the second reader (Paragraphs 66-70, wherein based on the results it is determined how to correct the print data, which would correspond to an abnormality).
Regarding Claim 10, Murakami teaches a method of controlling an image forming system (Paragraph 2) including an image former that forms an image on a recording medium (Paragraph 25, wherein there is a color printer unit),
a first reader that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 810 and paragraph 60, wherein there is a media sensor), and
a second reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 70 and paragraph 39, wherein there is a color sensor provided after the image forming), the method comprising:
reading a recording medium on which no image is formed by the first reader (Paragraph 60 and 65, wherein the sheet information is obtained);
forming an image on the recording medium by the image former (Paragraph 69, wherein the image is printed);
reading the recording medium on which the image is formed by the second reader (Paragraph 69 and 70, wherein the image data is read by the colorimeter);
and determining an abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a reading result of the first reader and a reading result of the second reader (Paragraphs 66-70, wherein based on the results it is determined how to correct the print data, which would correspond to an abnormality).
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, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2009/0086295) in view of Kuroda (US 2021/0141572).
Regarding Claim 1, Murakami teaches an image forming system (Paragraph 2) comprising:
an image former that forms an image on a recording medium (Paragraph 25, wherein there is a color printer unit);
a first reader that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 810 and paragraph 60, wherein there is a media sensor); and
a second reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 70 and paragraph 39, wherein there is a color sensor provided after the image forming).
Murakami does not teach wherein the first reader controls the second reader based on a reading result of the first reader, and the second reader controls the first reader based on a reading result of the second reader.
Kuroda teaches wherein the first reader controls the second reader based on a reading result of the first reader, and the second reader controls the first reader based on a reading result of the second reader (Paragraph 208, wherein it can be determined if the sheet approaching the determination. From there a determination can be made if the reading can be adjusted for the next sensor).
Murakami and Kuroda are combinable because they both deal with detecting errors in printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murakami with the teachings of Kuroda for the purpose of ensuring a proper verification process is performed only on sheets that have printed matter and avoiding partition pages (Kuroda: Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Murakami does not teach wherein the first reader controls the second reader based on the reading result of the first reader, and
the second reader controls the first reader based on the reading result of the second reader.
Kuroda teaches wherein the first reader controls the second reader based on the reading result of the first reader, and the second reader controls the first reader based on the reading result of the second reader (Paragraph 208, wherein it can be determined if the sheet approaching the determination. From there a determination can be made if the reading can be adjusted for the next sensor).
Murakami and Kuroda are combinable because they both deal with detecting errors in printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murakami with the teachings of Kuroda for the purpose of ensuring a proper verification process is performed only on sheets that have printed matter and avoiding partition pages (Kuroda: Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Murakami teaches a method of controlling an image forming system (Paragraph 2) including an image former that forms an image on a recording medium (Paragraph 25, wherein there is a color printer unit),
a first reader that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 810 and paragraph 60, wherein there is a media sensor), and
a second reader that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (Element 70 and paragraph 39, wherein there is a color sensor provided after the image forming), the method comprising:
reading a recording medium on which no image is formed by the first reader (Paragraph 60 and 65, wherein the sheet information is obtained);
forming an image on the recording medium by the image former (Paragraph 69, wherein the image is printed);
reading the recording medium on which the image is formed by the second reader (Paragraph 69 and 70, wherein the image data is read by the colorimeter).
Murakami does not teach controlling the second reader by the first reader based on a reading result of the first reader and controlling the first reader by the second reader based on a reading result of the second reader.
Kuroda teaches controlling the second reader by the first reader based on a reading result of the first reader and controlling the first reader by the second reader based on a reading result of the second reader (Paragraph 208, wherein it can be determined if the sheet approaching the determination. From there a determination can be made if the reading can be adjusted for the next sensor).
Murakami and Kuroda are combinable because they both deal with detecting errors in printing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murakami with the teachings of Kuroda for the purpose of ensuring a proper verification process is performed only on sheets that have printed matter and avoiding partition pages (Kuroda: Paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 2009/0086295) in view of Tanaka (US 2022/0253260).
Regarding Claim 3, Murakami further teaches wherein the second reader reads the recording medium on which the image is formed by the image former (Paragraph 39, wherein there is a color sensor provided after the image forming).
Murakami does not teach the determiner determines the abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a size of the recording medium based on the reading result of the first reader and a distance from an end of the recording medium in a sheet conveyance direction to the image formed based on the reading result of the second reader.
Tanaka does teach the determiner determines the abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a size of the recording medium based on the reading result of the first reader and a distance from an end of the recording medium in a sheet conveyance direction to the image formed based on the reading result of the second reader (Paragraphs 82 and 129, wherein the size is used to determine if there are problems with printing).
Murakami and Tanaka are combinable because they both deal with determining issues with print jobs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Murakami with the teachings of Tanaka for the purpose of ensuring proper verification of printed images (Tanaka: Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Murakami further teaches a detector that is provided upstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and detects a physical property of the recording medium (Element 810 and paragraph 60, wherein there is a media sensor), wherein
the determiner determines the abnormality of at least one of the first reader or the second reader based on a detection result of the detector (Paragraphs 66-70, wherein based on the results it is determined how to correct the print data, which would correspond to an abnormality).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of B-F and H all relate to measuring characteristics of the media or image data during the production of print data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
/GEORGE ENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699