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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHI (US 2022/0334520 A1; previously cited) in view of SHINJI (JP2009-046218A).
Nishi teaches regarding claim 2, an image forming system comprising: an image former that forms an image on a recording medium; a detector 40 that is provided upstream of the image former 14 in a conveyance direction of the recording medium 90 and detects a physical property of the recording medium; a first reader 241 that is provided downstream of the image former 14 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 (figure 5A-7, [0080-0101].
Regarding claim 5, the first reader 241 is controlled based on the detection result of the detector [, and the detector is controlled based on the reading result of the first reader].
Regarding claim 7, Nishi teaches a method of controlling an image forming system including an image former that forms an image on a recording medium, a detector 40 [that is provided upstream of the image former in a conveyance direction of the recording medium and] detects a physical property the recording medium, and a first reader 241 that is provided downstream of the image former in the conveyance direction of the recording medium and reads the recording medium (20, figure 1), a controller for controlling at least one of the first reader or the detector based on the abnormality determination. the method comprising: detecting, by the detector 40, 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 241, the recording medium on which the image is formed; and determining an abnormality of at least one of the detectors 40 [or the first reader based on a detection result of the detector and a reading result of the first reader].
NISHI does not teach that the first reader is controlled based on a detection result of the detector, and the detector is controlled based on a reading result of the first reader.
SHINJI teaches using a test page to calibrate a thickness detector wherein the test page is of known thickness and is sent through a thickness detector. This method is known and usable with other image forming devices (discussed with respect to figure 7 and transfer material P).
The examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art at the effective filing date of this invention to place a thickness detector in the feeding path of an image forming apparatus such as taught by WATANABE (US 2013/20011151 A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of this application to use the teaching of WATANABE with the teaching of Nishi to place a thickness detector in the feeding path of an image forming apparatus.
NISHI and SHINJI are concerned with image forming devices. NISHI teaches an image forming apparatus having a reader device and SHINJI teaches improving fixing temperature based on paper thickness.
The rationale for combining the teachings of SHINJI with the teachings of NISHI relates to the rationale of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to use the teaching of SHINJI with the teaching of NISHI to obtain better control fixing within an image forming apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. NOZAWA (US 2014/0029996 A1) teaches a moisture detector with error consideration that is located near the fixing unit for an image forming apparatus. KUDO et al. (US 2012/0315053 A1) teaches fluctuation ranges for a moisture detector within an image forming device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments file 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nishi adjusts the conveyance speed when abnormalities such as image defects occur. In contrast, the present invention controls at least one of the first reader or the detector, which are considered to be the cause of the abnormality, based on the abnormality determination. In other words, while Nishi aims to optimize conveyance, the present invention aims to determine and control abnormalities in the detector and the first reader that support the image forming system.
When the conveyance speed is controlled, the speed of the reader is also changed. Thus, based on the abnormalities, the controller changes the reader speed.
Applicant argues that even if Shinji's thickness calibration is combined with Nishi's conveyance optimization, there is no suggestion anywhere in Nishi or Shinji that a mutual control structure, as in the present invention, would arise that determines abnormalities based on the output result of the detector and the reading output, and controls at least one of the first reader or the detector based on the abnormality determination.
However, the process taught by Shinji is similar to a process discussed in the detailed description. The test page process can be used in any printing system with many testing objectives and methods. Both methods can be used together or separately and would meet the claims.
The claims remain rejected as discussed above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANA GRAINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-2135. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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, Clayton Labelle can be reached on 571-272-1594. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANA GRAINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
QG