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 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: “adjustment processing portion” and “limitation processing portion” in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
adjustment processing portion – Paragraphs 134 and 27, wherein the adjustment processing portion is part of the control portion which includes a CPU
limitation processing portion - Paragraphs 134 and 27, wherein the limitation processing portion is part of the control portion which includes a CPU
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 102
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komiya (US 2008/0075484).
Regarding Claim 1, Komiya teaches an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 2) comprising:
an image forming portion configured to form an image using toner (Paragraph 68, wherein there is a printer section that forms an image using toner);
an adjustment processing portion configured to, during execution of an image forming process using the image forming portion, use the toner to adjust image quality of an output image output by the image forming process (Paragraphs 141 and 146, wherein the quality of the image is obtained through image stabilization process); and
a limitation processing portion configured to, when an amount of adjustment of the image quality of the output image by the adjustment processing portion exceeds a predetermined limit value, limit the amount of adjustment of the image quality of the output image by the adjustment processing portion to the limit value (Paragraph 57, wherein the adjustments are limited based on the necessary conditions to be met).
Regarding Claim 2, wherein each time a predetermined first adjustment condition is satisfied, the adjustment processing portion adjusts one adjustment target selected in accordance with a predetermined specific order among a plurality of adjustment targets related to the image quality of the output image (Paragraph 146, wherein the optimum combination and order is derived).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein when the amount of adjustment of one of the adjustment targets is limited by the limitation processing portion, the adjustment processing portion adjusts the adjustment target every time the first adjustment condition is satisfied until the amount of adjustment is no longer limited (Paragraph 146, wherein the optimum combination and order is derived to ensure proper image stabilization. This can correspond to adjustment of the bias, paragraph 99).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein when the amount of adjustment of one of the adjustment targets is limited by the limitation processing portion, the adjustment processing portion adjusts the adjustment target every time a second adjustment condition that is satisfied earlier than the first adjustment condition is satisfied until the amount of adjustment is no longer limited (Paragraph 146, wherein the optimum combination and order is derived to ensure proper image stabilization. This can correspond to adjustment of the LED, paragraph 120).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein
the image forming portion includes:
a density correction portion configured to correct a density of image data based on predetermined table data (Paragraph 123, wherein a table can be used in association with density);
a light source configured to emit light based on the image data after density correction by the density correction portion (Paragraph 71, wherein the LED is controlled based on the toner patch data);
a laser scanning portion configured to run the light emitted from the light source to form an electrostatic latent image on an image carrier (Paragraphs 66 and 75, wherein the electrostatic latent image is formed by laser); and
a developing portion configured to develop the electrostatic latent image formed by the laser scanning portion in accordance with application of a predetermined developing bias voltage (Paragraphs 70 and 75, wherein the image is developed accordingly), wherein
the plurality of adjustment targets include the developing bias voltage, an amount of the light, a position on the image carrier at which the electrostatic latent image is formed by the laser scanning portion, and the table data (Paragraphs 67, 75, and 77, wherein the adjustments are made based on the bias, light, position of the drum, the density correction controlled by the table).
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art A-F and H relate to density and image quality correction for printing images.
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