Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/624,572

EXPOSURE APPARATUS AND IMAGE-FORMING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 02, 2024
Examiner
MCMILLION, TRACEY M
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
545 granted / 623 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
657
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
56.0%
+16.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 623 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the limit value" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the limit value" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the limit value" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the limit value" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. 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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo (US 2020/0073276) and further in view of Furuta (US 2011/0298884). With regard to claim 1, Shindo discloses an exposure apparatus (24) [Fig. 9] that exposes a photosensitive member (22) [Fig. 9] with light in accordance with image data, the exposure apparatus comprising: a plurality of light-emitting elements (43) [Para. 0056] that are arranged along a direction of a rotation axis of the photosensitive member [Fig. 9] and configured to emit light for exposing the photosensitive member; and at least one processor (208) configured to: control turning on and off of the plurality of light-emitting elements in accordance with the image data [light amount; Para. 0043; Fig. 2]; generate correction data for use in increasing or decreasing the number of the light-emitting elements to be tuned on based on a correction amount for correcting unevenness in light amount [generate a mask pattern based on information regarding light amounts obtained from the storage; Para. 11] correct image data [while the line head is being used, correction values are read out and illumination times are corrected; Para. 0005] Shindo does not teach wherein the correction data is generated such that the correction data indicates a first value for a pixel for which the correction amount indicates the first value that does not exceed a predetermined limit value, and the correction data indicates a second value for a pixel for which the correction amount indicates a value that exceeds the limit value, the second value being equal to or smaller than the limit value. However, Furuta teaches the correction data [light amount correction signal; Para. 0145] indicates a first value for a pixel [ON] for which the correction amount [light correction amount] indicates the first value that does not exceed a predetermined limit value [intensity is not higher than the predetermined threshold value K; Para. 0145-0147] and a second value for a pixel [OFF] for which the correction amount indicates a value that exceeds the limit value, the second value being equal to or smaller than the limit value [intensity is higher than the predetermined threshold value K; Para. 0145-0147] . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a first value for a pixel and a second value for a pixel in order to reduce degradation of image quality. With regard to claim 9, Shindo discloses an image-forming apparatus (101) [Fig. 8] comprising: the photosensitive member (22) [Fig. 9]; and an exposure apparatus (24) [Fig. 9], wherein the exposure apparatus includes: a plurality of light-emitting elements (43) [Para. 0056] that are arranged along a direction of a rotation axis of the photosensitive member [Fig. 9] and configured to emit light for exposing the photosensitive member; and at least one processor (208) configured to: control turning on and off of the plurality of light-emitting elements in accordance with the image data [light amount; Para. 0043; Fig. 2]; generate correction data for use in increasing or decreasing the number of the light-emitting elements to be tuned on based on a correction amount for correcting unevenness in light amount [generate a mask pattern based on information regarding light amounts obtained from the storage; Para. 11] correct image data [while the line head is being used, correction values are read out and illumination times are corrected; Para. 0005] Shindo does not teach wherein the correction data is generated such that the correction data indicates a first value for a pixel for which the correction amount indicates the first value that does not exceed a predetermined limit value, and the correction data indicates a second value for a pixel for which the correction amount indicates a value that exceeds the limit value, the second value being equal to or smaller than the limit value. However, Furuta (US 20110298884) teaches the correction data [light amount correction signal; Para. 0145] indicates a first value for a pixel [ON] for which the correction amount [light correction amount] indicates the first value that does not exceed a predetermined limit value [intensity is not higher than the predetermined threshold value K; Para. 0145-0147] and a second value for a pixel [OFF] for which the correction amount indicates a value that exceeds the limit value, the second value being equal to or smaller than the limit value [intensity is higher than the predetermined threshold value K; Para. 0145-0147] . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a first value for a pixel and a second value for a pixel in order to reduce degradation of image quality. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8 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. Claims 2-6 are objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine an adjustment amount of the electric current such that the unevenness in light amount among the plurality of light-emitting chips is suppressed, and wherein the electric current supplied from each current source is adjusted based on the adjustment amount.” Claims 7-8 are objected to because the prior art does not teach or make obvious “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine, for each of the plurality of sections, an adjustment amount of an electric current supplied to the light-emitting elements that belong to the section such that the unevenness in light amount among the plurality of sections is suppressed, and wherein the electric current supplied to the light-emitting elements is adjusted based on the adjustment amount.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACEY M MCMILLION whose telephone number is (571)270-5193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-2:30PM EST. 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, Douglas X. Rodriguez can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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. /TRACEY M MCMILLION/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853 /SHELBY L FIDLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 02, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594771
IMAGE RECORDING DEVICE INCLUDING THERMAL HEAD AND READER POSITIONED DOWNSTREAM OF THERMAL HEAD IN CONVEYING DIRECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594775
PRINTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577729
PRESERVATION OF MOISTURE EVAPORATION AND BODY TEMPERATURE REGULATION PROPERTIES ON GARMENTS POST PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578668
EXPOSURE HEAD AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576634
DRIVE CIRCUIT UNIT, HEAD UNIT, AND LIQUID DISCHARGE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+2.4%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 623 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month