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 .
2. This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment received on 07/22/2026.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1 and 3-24 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15, 19-21, and 23 are currently amended.
Claim 24 is newly added.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claim Interpretation
4. It is noted that the claims have been amended to recite specific hardware to perform the claimed operations. Thus, the present claimed arrangement is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding Applicant’s Argument (pages 9-13):
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 07/22/2026 have been considered and are persuasive, but are moot because the arguments are addressed by newly cited references explained in the body of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julien (US 2006/0221362 A1) in view of Hoshi et al. (US 9,274,479 B2).
Regarding Claim 1:
Julien discloses an image forming system including image forming apparatuses (Julien: Figs. 1-3. disclose an image forming system including multiple marking engines, the engines may be printers; [0047], [0057-0059]), the image forming system comprising:
a hardware processor that determines an image formation condition for each of the image forming apparatuses (Julien discloses common control system 18 communicates with engine control units 150 and commands software controlled adjustments; [0071-0072]),
Julien does not expressly disclose based on sheet characteristic information corresponding to a characteristic of a sheet acquired from each of the image forming apparatuses.
Hoshi discloses based on sheet characteristic information corresponding to a characteristic of a sheet acquired from each of the image forming apparatuses (Hoshi teaches optical sensor 2245, detection of medium surface and internal characteristics, identification of the medium, and obtaining corresponding fixing conditions from a stored fixing table. See Fig. 1; col. 9, lines 5-59; and claims 14-17. The detected characteristics include surface properties and thickness. Hoshi further explains that medium properties affect fixing and image uniformity, col. 1, lines 25-40).
Julien in view of Hoshi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., their controls address the same physical fixing process and its effect on printed quality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equip each Julien printer with Hoshi’s medium detection and provide its detected information to the common processor through the disclosed communication links.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to avoid selecting a matching condition on an assumed medium when the actual sheet properties alter fixing and output quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor executes distributed printing in which one print job is executed by the image forming apparatuses (Julien distributes portions of one print job across marking engines and combines their output; [0035], [0047], and [0063]).
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor determines expected image quality based on the sheet characteristic information using image quality change characteristic information of each of the image forming apparatuses (Julien’s per engine temperature to gloss lookup table or algorithm is image quality change characteristic information because it indicates the quality expected at a candidate condition; [0078] and [0083]).
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 4, wherein the image quality change characteristic information defines a relationship between the image formation condition to be set and image quality (Julien’s table relates measured gloss to several fuser temperature settings, and its algorithm associates fuser temperatures with corresponding gloss for each engine; [0078], [0080], and [0083]. These are relationships between an image formation condition to be set and image quality, as required).
Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 6, wherein the hardware processor estimates an image quality change prediction width based on a range of the image formation condition that can be set using the image quality change characteristic information of each of the image forming apparatuses (Julien teaches a settable fuser temperature range bounded by acceptable fix at its lower end and operating or hot offset limits at its upper end. It relates temperature to achievable gloss and identifies a maximum achievable gloss for an engine. ([0050-0053], [0081], and Figs. 4-5). Together with the per-engine response information in [0078] and [0083], these teachings provide the data for predicting the interval of quality achievable over each engine’s settable condition range), determines an overlap in the image quality change prediction width among the image forming apparatuses, and, in a case where there is the overlap, the image formation condition to achieve the image quality within an overlap range (Julien discloses whether the engines have an overlapping operating range for consistent gloss in [0085]. It selects temperatures for consistent output in [0077-0081], and permits a target below the base engine’s maximum in [0086]).
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 7, wherein the hardware processor;
executes distributed printing in which one print job is executed by the image forming apparatuses, and determines, at execution of the distributed printing, that in a case where there is no overlap in the image quality change prediction width, the distributed printing cannot be executed, and notifies a user of a determination result (Julien executes distributed printing of one job and, when the engines lack overlapping operating ranges for consistent gloss, signals that an engine is out of range and can schedule the job on one engine instead of two. ([0085])).
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 7, wherein a number of the image forming apparatuses is three or more, the hardware processor;
executes distributed printing in which one print job is executed by the image forming apparatuses (Julien considers three, four, six, or eight engines in [0058]), and
determines, at execution of the distributed printing, in a case where there is the overlap in the image quality change prediction width among some of the image forming apparatuses, the image formation condition to achieve the image quality within the overlap range for each of the some of the image forming apparatuses among which there is the overlap (Julien describes wherein the consistency set can be a selected subset of engines used for a job, [0077], and the scheduler can limit printing to engines capable of consistent gloss, [0085]).
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 11:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, comprising:
an information processing apparatus connected to the image forming apparatuses, wherein the hardware processor is incorporated in the information processing apparatus (Julien: Figs. 1-3 discloses an image forming system including multiple marking engines controlled by common control system 18; the engines may be printers. ([0047], [0057-0059]). The common control system communicates with engine control units 150 and commands software-controlled adjustments to physical fuser settings. ([0071-0072]).
Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 13:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein each of the image forming apparatuses includes a medium detector that acquires the sheet characteristic information (Hoshi’s optical sensor 2245 is the medium detector. (Fig. 1 and claims 13-17)).
Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 14:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 13, wherein the medium detector is arranged on an upstream side with respect to an image former on an internal conveyance path of the image forming apparatus (Hoshi’s sensor 2245 is located on the internal conveyance path between feeding roller 2054 and registration rollers 2056, upstream of image formation on the sheet. (Fig. 1 and Col. 17, ll. 27-34).
Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi.
Regarding Claim 15:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 13, wherein the hardware processor; executes distributed printing in which one print job is executed by the image forming apparatuses, and readjusts, during execution of the distributed printing, the image formation condition for forming an image on the sheet for each of the image forming apparatuses, based on the sheet characteristic information that has been acquired (Julien performs distributed printing and permits additional fuser adjustments during the job ([0084]); Hoshi supplies medium detection during conveyance and responsive fixing-table selection (Col. 17, ll. 27-34; Col. 9, ll. 36-59)).
Julien in view of Hoshi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., their controls address the same physical fixing process and its effect on printed quality. It would have been obvious to repeat the medium responsive condition determination for sheets conveyed during the distributed run, readjusting the respective conditions when acquired sheet information calls for it. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to preserve the common quality objective despite a change in media characteristics during execution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the image quality is at least one of color, density, glossiness, and a degree of bleed (Julien equalizes gloss, which is one of the expressly recited alternatives).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the image formation condition includes at least one of a fixing condition of a fixing device that heats and pressurizes the sheet to fix toner onto the sheet, and a conveyance speed of the sheet during image formation (Julien’s fuser applies heat and pressure, and the processor adjusts fuser temperature or pressure; ([0034], [0064], and [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the sheet characteristic information includes at least one of a surface property, a basis weight, a sheet thickness, a moisture percentage, stiffness, and a grain direction of the sheet (Hoshi detects surface properties and thickness, (Col. 9, ll. 5-27, and claims 15-16)).
Julien in view of Hoshi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., their controls address the same physical fixing process and its effect on printed quality. It would have been obvious to wherein the sheet characteristic information includes at least one of a surface property, a basis weight, a sheet thickness, a moisture percentage, stiffness, and a grain direction of the sheet. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to preserve the common quality objective despite a change in media characteristics during execution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor acquires the sheet characteristic information corresponding to the characteristic of the sheet from each of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and determines, based on the sheet characteristic information that has been acquired, the image formation condition for forming an image on the sheet to be set for each of the image forming apparatuses (Hoshi teaches optical sensor 2245, detection of medium surface and internal characteristics, identification of the medium, and obtaining corresponding fixing conditions from a stored fixing table. (Fig. 1; Col. 9, lines 5-59; and claims 14-17). The detected characteristics include surface properties and thickness. Hoshi further explains that medium properties affect fixing and image uniformity, (Col. 1, lines 25-40)).
Julien in view of Hoshi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., their controls address the same physical fixing process and its effect on printed quality. It would have been obvious to equip each Julien printer with Hoshi’s medium detection and provide its detected information to the common processor through the disclosed communication links. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to avoid selecting a matching condition on an assumed medium when the actual sheet properties alter fixing and output quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Regarding Claim 21: (drawn to an apparatus)
The proposed rejection of system claim 1, over Julien in view of Hoshi is similarly cited to reject the apparatus of claim 21 because these steps occur in the operation of the system as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 21.
Regarding Claim 22: (drawn to an apparatus)
The proposed rejection of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the hardware processor includes an acquirer that acquires the sheet characteristic information corresponding to the characteristic of the sheet from each of the plurality of image forming apparatuses, and an image formation condition setter that determines, based on the sheet characteristic information acquired by the acquirer, the image formation condition for forming an image on the sheet to be set for each of the plurality of image forming apparatuses (Julien’s common control system 18 is an information processing apparatus controlling the engines to execute a distributed job, ([0057], [0063], and [0073-0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Regarding Claim 23: (drawn to a computer readable medium (CRM))
The proposed rejection of Julien in view of Hoshi over system claim 1 and apparatus claim 21 is similarly cited to reject the steps of the computer readable medium of claim 23 because these steps occur in the operation of the system and apparatus as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 21 are equally applicable to claim 23.
Hoshi teaches that the printer controlling device 2090 includes “a CPU, a ROM which stores programs written with codes that are readable with the CPU” (Hoshi: Col. 4, lines 30-65; Fig. 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien with Hoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
11. Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Higashiuchi (US 2021/0365220 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 4, but does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor determines the image quality change characteristic information based on at least one piece of apparatus information on an apparatus model, an apparatus usage history, and an apparatus usage environment of each of the image forming apparatuses (Higashiuchi associates image-quality learning information with machine type and, in a further embodiment, installation environment and usage history. (Fig. 15 and [0118-0121]). The environment includes temperature and humidity; the history includes cumulative prints. Paragraph [0120] uses matching attributes when determining whether the submitted model corresponds to a previously validated model).
Julien, Hoshi and Higashiuchi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. All are drawn to improving the output quality of a printed product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Higashiuchi’s technique of selecting apparatus specific characteristic information based on machine type, environment and usage history to each printer in Julien and Hoshi’s distributed system. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to ensure that the image quality change characteristic information used for each printer accurately reflects that printer’s actual condition, thereby improving the precision of the image quality equalization across the distributed system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien, Hoshi and Higashiuchi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 19:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the image forming apparatus includes a reader that reads an image on the sheet after image formation on an internal conveyance path to obtain read image data, and the hardware processor generates or updates the image quality change characteristic information based on the sheet characteristic information of the sheet, the image formation condition, and the read image data (Higashiuchi places scanner 291 on the internal conveyance path downstream of image forming part 260 and before discharge, [0036] and Fig. 2. It acquires a scanned printed result and updates the model based on the measured quality improvement associated with the preceding control-parameter change, [0087-0088]); (Julien also teaches per-engine sensors, [0065], image appearance sensing, [0067-0071], and measurement at several temperatures to establish the response, [0078-0080]).
Julien, Hoshi and Higashiuchi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. All are drawn to improving the output quality of a printed product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Higashiuchi's scanner based feedback loop into each printer in the combined system of Julien and Hoshi. The suggestion/motivation for doing is it leads to more accurate image quality predictions and better equalization across the distributed printing system over time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien, Hoshi and Higashiuchi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
12. Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julien in view of Hoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondo (US 2020/0371732 A1).
Regarding Claim 10:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor:
executes distributed printing in which one print job is executed by the image forming apparatuses, determines, to equalize image quality of a printed product output by the image forming apparatuses that execute the distributed printing, the image formation condition for each of the image forming apparatuses (Julien and Hoshi provide execution of the distributed job and determination of the per-engine conditions for equalized output. Julien allows further adjustments during a job, [0084]), and determines,
Julien in view of Hoshi do not expressly disclose in a case of adding the image forming apparatus that executes the distributed printing during execution of the distributed printing, the image formation condition for the image forming apparatus to be added to match the image quality the image forming apparatus to be added to the image quality of the image forming apparatus already executing the distributed printing.
Kondo discloses in a case of adding the image forming apparatus that executes the distributed printing during execution of the distributed printing, the image formation condition for the image forming apparatus to be added to match the image quality the image forming apparatus to be added to the image quality of the image forming apparatus already executing the distributed printing (Kondo discloses that after printing of a first distributed portion has begun, a third printer requests participation and is assigned part of the remaining job. ([0075-0076] and [0122]).
Julien, Hoshi and Kondo are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. All are drawn to improving the output quality of a printed product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kondo’s mid job assignment in the Julien and Hoshi system to use a newly available printer for the unprinted work.
The suggestion/motivation for doing is to make better uses of resources as disclosed by Kondo at [0066]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Julien, Hoshi and Kondo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12:
The proposed combination of Julien in view of Hoshi further discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is incorporated in any one of the image forming apparatuses.
Kondo discloses the image forming system according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the hardware processor is incorporated in any one of the image forming apparatuses (Kondo teaches control of distributed printing in an image forming apparatus itself. ([0080-0081] identify the first printer and its print controller 21 as the print control apparatus; [0041] describes CPU 21a and ROM, and [0084] describes execution of the firmware by the print controller).
Julien, Hoshi and Kondo are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. All are drawn to improving the output quality of a printed product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the common control functions of Julien and Hoshi in the printer processor of Kondo.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to use the printer’s processing and network capabilities to coordinate the job without using a separate computer.
Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over Julien, Hoshi and Kondo.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 24 is 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.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 24:
The prior art made of record fails to either anticipate or render obvious the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further stores image quality change characteristic information having two types of formats of an image quality change prediction width and an input-output relationship that are specific to each of the image forming apparatuses.
Conclusion
15. 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights