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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/4/04/2024is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Oath/Declaration
The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Drawings
6. The receipt of Drawings is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a drive portion configured to rotate one of the plurality of support rollers, and configured to convey a sheet on the conveying belt in claims 1 and 6 (See Applicant’s. Spec. Para. [0031]-[0032], Applicant’s Dwg. Fig. 1, Motor 323).
a rotation amount detection portion configured to detect a rotation amount of one of the plurality of support rollers in claims 3 and 6 (See Applicant’s. Spec. Para. [0035]-[0036], Applicant’s Dwg. Fig. 1, Rotary Encoder 325).
an adjustment portion configured to adjust a control parameter of the printing device based on the plurality of pixel data items obtained by the image reading portion in claim 6 (See Applicant’s. Spec. Para. [0072] and [0092]-[0121], Applicant’s Dwg. Fig. 2, Adjustment Portion 8d of CPU 80).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the control portion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), based on its respective claim dependency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the control portion" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5 are allowed.
Claims 3, 4 and 6 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection and acknowledgment of the 35 USC 112(f) Claim Interpretation.
17. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter shown within the combination of limitations as expressed below:
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the prior art(s) searched and of record neither anticipates nor makes obvious nor discloses or suggests the claimed limitations of the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1 as follows:
“a reference member disposed to face the image reading portion and configured to form a pair of boundary lines at a pair of reference positions in the pair of off-belt areas by a difference in reflectance of the detection light;
a calibration portion configured to identify data items corresponding to the pair of boundary lines in the plurality of pixel data items obtained by the image reading portion so as to correct reference position data representing a correspondence relationship between the plurality of pixel data items and positions in the width direction; and
an adjustment portion configured to derive a pair of lateral edge positions that are positions of both ends of the sheet in the width direction based on the plurality of pixel data items obtained by the image reading portion when the sheet is conveyed by the belt conveyor device and the reference position data, and adjust a control parameter of the printing device in accordance with a derivation result of the pair of lateral edge positions.”, in addition to all the limitations as required by the independent claim 1.
In the primary prior art cited but not relied upon of Yamada (US PG. Pub. 2022/0127092 A1) teaches a configuration of a printer 101, which is an example of an image forming apparatus, is described with reference to FIG. 1. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the printer 101 is a multifunction apparatus equipped with a printer body 101A and an image reading apparatus 1. The printer body 101A forms an image on a recording medium P, which is a medium for recording. The image reading apparatus 1 is disposed above the printer body 101A and includes a reading unit body 1B and an ADF 1A. The image reading apparatus 1 reads image information by optically scanning a surface of a sheet, which is a document D. Types of sheets to be used as recording media P or documents D include a thin paper, a thick paper, a plastic film such as a sheet for overhead projector (OHP), a surface-treated paper such as a coated paper, a specially shaped sheet such as an envelope, and cloth (See Yamada, Sect. [0016]).
In the secondary prior art cited but not relied upon of Urase (US PG. Pub. 2022/0086295 A1) discloses in A scanner 20 includes a reading portion 220. The reading portion 220 reads the document D. The reading portion 220 includes a light source 201 and an image sensor 202. The light source 201 shines light to the document D as the reading target. The image sensor 202 receives the light reflected from the document D and performs photoelectric conversion. In the feed-reading mode, the light source 201 is held at the position shown in FIG. 2, and from this position the light source 201 shines light toward the feed-reading contact glass 20a. The light is reflected from the document D on the feed-reading contact glass 20a, and the light reflected from the document D strikes the image sensor 202. Thus a document D being conveyed along a conveyance passage 211 is read. In the feed-reading mode, light travels as indicated by broken-line arrows in FIG. 2 (See Sect. [0018] of the Urase Reference).
In particular, the closest reference cited but not relied upon of Yamada fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claim 1. Also, secondary cited reference but not relied upon of Urase does not remedy the deficiencies required by claim 1 as follows:
““a reference member disposed to face the image reading portion and configured to form a pair of boundary lines at a pair of reference positions in the pair of off-belt areas by a difference in reflectance of the detection light;
a calibration portion configured to identify data items corresponding to the pair of boundary lines in the plurality of pixel data items obtained by the image reading portion so as to correct reference position data representing a correspondence relationship between the plurality of pixel data items and positions in the width direction; and
an adjustment portion configured to derive a pair of lateral edge positions that are positions of both ends of the sheet in the width direction based on the plurality of pixel data items obtained by the image reading portion when the sheet is conveyed by the belt conveyor device and the reference position data, and adjust a control parameter of the printing device in accordance with a derivation result of the pair of lateral edge positions, since both Yamada and Urase fail to provide an image forming device including sheet conveying techniques using an endless conveying belt configuration with image reading portion for light emittance and target area light detection and a reference member disposed to face the image reading portion and configured to form a pair of boundary lines at a pair of reference positions in the pair of off-belt areas by a difference in reflectance of the detection light; a calibration portion configured to identify data items corresponding to the pair of boundary lines in the plurality of pixel data items obtained by the image reading portion so as to correct reference position data representing a correspondence relationship between the plurality of pixel data items and positions in the width direction; and an adjustment portion configured to derive a pair of lateral edge positions that are positions of both ends of the sheet in the width direction based on the plurality of pixel data items obtained by the image reading portion when the sheet is conveyed by the belt conveyor device and the reference position data, and adjust a control parameter of the printing device in accordance with a derivation result of the pair of lateral edge positions as suggested by the claim.
18. Therefore, whether taken individually or in combination therof, the prior arts searched, cited and/or of record to include Yamada and Urase fails to explicitly teach the claimed limitation(s) as required by independent claim 1.
19. It follows that claims 2 and 5 are then inherently allowable for depending on an allowable base claim.
20. Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRYL V DOTTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached on 571-270-5254. 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.
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/DARRYL V DOTTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683