Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/629,684

IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND REPLACEMENT METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 08, 2024
Examiner
POON, KING Y
Art Unit
2617
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Konica Minolta Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allow Rate
3 granted / 9 resolved
-28.7% vs TC avg
Strong +56% interview lift
Without
With
+55.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
24
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§103
71.2%
+31.2% vs TC avg
§102
13.6%
-26.4% vs TC avg
§112
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 9 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 . Claim Objections Claims 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 appears to have depended on claim 6. Claim 9 is claiming a replacement method, which matches independent claim 6 which is a replacement method while claim I is an image forming apparatus which claim 9 should not depend on (one is an apparatus and 9 is a method). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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) 1-3, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata US 2012/0074641 in view of Nakagaki US 5,810,489. Regarding claims 1, 6: Murata teaches an image forming apparatus (fig. 2) comprising: a roller (retard roller 31, paragraph 50) that is involved in conveyance of a sheet-like medium (sheet P paragraph 0016, fig. 2) in the image forming apparatus; and an allower (chute 32 holder 71, paragraph 50) that allows movement of the roller to a position different from a position where the roller is normally used (from set position to the replacement position, paragraph 0050) in the image forming apparatus. Murata does not clearly teaches a receiver that electrically or mechanically receives a trigger for replacement of the roller; and the allower that, in response to the trigger received by the receiver, allows movement of the roller to a position different from a position where the roller is normally used in the image forming apparatus. Nakagaki teaches a receiver that electrically or mechanically receives a trigger for replacement of the roller (a driving signal for replacement is supply to the motor, column 18, lines 60-65; note: the motor inherently must has a part that receive the driving signal); and the allower (the driving part of the motor, column 18, lines 60-65) that, in response to the trigger received by the receiver, allows movement of the roller to a position different from a position where the roller is normally used (replacement position, column 18, lines 60-65; also see the positional change of roller 145 in fig. 19, 20, 21 22) in the image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the allower of Nakagaki to add a motor the system such that a receiver that electrically or mechanically receives a trigger for replacement of the roller; and the allower that, in response to the trigger received by the receiver, allows movement of the roller to a position different from a position where the roller is normally used in the image forming apparatus. The reason of doing so would have saving the user a lot of effort by automate the roller movement system from the set position to replacement position and vice versa. Regarding claims 2, 7: Murata teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a cover member (32, fig. 4A, fig. 4B) that is movable between a first position (the position of 32 in fig. 4A and fig. 5) where the cover member forms at least part of a conveyance path through which the sheet-like medium that is conveyed by the roller passes (see 11a in normal position/set position will form a path which will allow sheet like medium P to convey, note, fig. 3, fig. 4A showing 32 is part of 11a which form the conveying path) to conveyed and a second position (fig. 4B, when 32 is open up, it will block the conveying path) where the cover member does not form the conveyance path, wherein the allower, with the cover member located at the first position, does not allow movement of the roller to a position different from the position where the roller is normally used in the image forming apparatus (see rejection of claim 1, when the 32 is in fig. 4A position, it is the set position and there will be no driving signal to allow roller 31 to move to the position as shown in fig. 4B replacement position, also see paragraph 35, where located at the set position, the protective portion 76b inhibits or limits the movement…and the retard roller in the direction C). Regarding claims 3, 8: Murata teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the cover member includes a restriction member (see fig. 4A, 32C of cover 32 will prevent movement of roller 31/protective portion 76b moving in the C direction) that restricts movement of the roller with the cover member located at the first position (paragraph 35, where located at the set position, the protective portion 76b inhibits or limits the movement…and the retard roller in the direction C). Claim(s) 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata US 2012/0074641 in view of Nakagaki US 5,810,489 and further in view of Fujimoto US 20250320078. Regarding claims 4, 9: Murata teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a sheet feed tray that stores a plurality of the sheet-like media in a stack (see P of fig. 2), Murata teaches the roller is a pickup roller (paragraph 0036) pick up roller 5 is freely detachable…to be replaceable) that picks up the sheet-like medium stored in the sheet feed tray (fig. 1), the image forming apparatus further includes a connection member (pick up roller frame 52, paragraph 0036) that pivotally supports a first rotation shaft (see pick up roller 5 is rotatable about a center, fig. 3A and fig. 3B) and is rotatable about a second rotation shaft different from the first rotation shaft (see pick up roller frame is rotatable about shaft 51, fig. 3A and fig. 3B), and the pickup roller is moved between the position where the pickup roller is normally used (fig. 3B, retract position, paragraph 0037) and a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used by rotation of the connection member about the second rotation shaft (fig. 3A, intake position paragraph 0037). Note: paragraph 0044 teaches to use rotational shaft for supporting a rotational roller (separation roller 9). Although the specification of Fujimoto does not clearly state that the pick up roller and the pickup roller frame are supported by a shaft, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to use a shaft for supporting the pick up roller for rotation, and a shaft for supporting the pick up roller frame for rotation. Such method has been used by humans for thousands of years and has proven to be efficient and reliable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pick up roller of Murata to include: the roller is a pickup roller, the image forming apparatus further includes a connection member that pivotally supports a first rotation shaft and is rotatable about a second rotation shaft different from the first rotation shaft, and the pickup roller is moved between the position where the pickup roller is normally used and a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used by rotation of the connection member about the second rotation shaft. The reason of doing so would have allowed the image forming apparatus to last longer and performed at the highest level by allowing the pick up roller to be replaceable. Claim(s) 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata US 2012/0074641 in view of Nakagaki US 5,810,489 and further in view of Fujimoto US 20250320078 and Kamata (US 10514637). Regarding claims 5 and 10: Murata teaches: the image forming apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a sheet feed roller (sheet feed roller 13, paragraph 0021) that conveys the sheet-like medium that has been picked up by the pickup roller; and a separation roller (retard roller 31, paragraph 0023) that is provided opposite to the sheet feed roller and pressed against the sheet feed roller (fig. 1), wherein the allower, with the separation roller moved to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller, allows movement of the pickup roller to a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used. (see fig, 4A and 4B, retard roller 31 can be moved to different position does not appear to have contacting sheet feed roller 13). Note: in order to replace the pick up roller, the pick up roller has to move to a position different from the position where the pick up roller is normally used (see rejection of claim 4) regardless whether the separation roller is pressing the sheet feed roller or not. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have made the allower such that the allower, with the separation roller moved to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller, allows movement of the pickup roller to a position different from the position where the pickup roller is normally used in order to replace the pick up roller. The separation roller of Murata appears can move to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller as previously discussed, it was not clearly stated. Kamata teaches the separation roller can move to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller (fig. 5 and fig 6, column 7, lines 64-66, the separation roller 36 is separated from the sheet feed roller 35 by a predetermined distance based on a signal from the processor 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murata to include: the separation roller can move to a position where the separation roller does not press the sheet feed roller, The reason of doing so would have allow medium of different thickness to effectively and smoothly be separated and move through the sheet feeding path. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING Y POON whose telephone number is (571)270-0728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 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, Alfred Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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. /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 08, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12558886
HEAD UNIT AND LIQUID EJECTING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12361640
DYNAMIC METAVERSE ACCOMMODATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 8743389
Methods and systems rendering a print job
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 03, 2014
Patent null
IDLE COLOR SEPARATION ALGORITHM
Granted
Patent null
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
Granted
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
33%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+55.6%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 9 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month