Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/640,623

OPTICAL SCANNING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS INCLUDING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 19, 2024
Examiner
CHEN, HUO LONG
Art Unit
2682
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Kyocera Document Solutions Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
314 granted / 590 resolved
-8.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
627
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§103
64.3%
+24.3% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 590 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 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. Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe’191 (US 2012/0224191), and further in view of Shukuya’463 (US 8,902,463). With respect to claim 1, Abe’191 teaches an optical scanning device (Fig.1) for exposing a surface of an image carrier so as to form an electrostatic latent image whose charge is decreased, the optical scanning device comprising: a scanning optical system (Fig.1, item 101) that scans the image carrier with a light beam (paragraph 34); a housing that holds optical elements constituting the scanning optical system [as shown in Fig.1, all of the optical elements in the scanning optical system 101 are considered being housed]; a skew adjustment mechanism that corrects scanning inclination by changing position of the optical element from a reference position [performed by adjusting inclination of unillustrated reflection mirrors. An unillustrated stepping motor is driven to adjust the inclination (paragraph 115). As a result, a skew adjustment mechanism is considered being disclosed to correct scanning inclination by changing position of the optical element from a reference position]; and a control unit (Fig.3, item 1) that controls drive of the skew adjustment mechanism (paragraph 169), wherein the skew adjustment mechanism includes a skew adjustment motor for adjusting an angle of the optical element (paragraph 115), and when returning the optical element to the reference position, the control unit forms a reference image on the image carrier at three points obtained by equally dividing the position change of the optical element per half period into two, so as to measure skew amounts of the optical element, and calculates rotation amount of the skew adjustment motor necessary for returning the optical element to the reference position, on the basis of rotation amounts of the skew adjustment motor when moving the optical element to the three points, and skew amounts measured at the three points [As shown in Fig.4, a pattern image (including "a test pattern image for correcting color shift" and "a test pattern image for correcting image density") (a reference) for correcting image forming conditions when forming a full-color image on the intermediate transfer belt for positional shift correction. Therefore, the optical element (Fig.1, item 101) is considered to return to a reference position, so that the CPU (Fig.3, item 1) form a pattern image (a reference image) on the intermediate transfer belt (the image carrier) at three points obtained by equally dividing the position change of the optical element per half period into two, so as to measure positional shift (skew amounts) of the optical element (Fig.1, item 101), and calculates rotation amount of the positional shift correction motor necessary for returning the optical element to the reference position, on the basis of rotation amounts of the skew adjustment motor when moving the optical element to the three points, and skew amounts measured at the three points]. Abe’191 does not teach rotates the skew adjustment motor in a fixed direction so that the position of the optical element changes periodically, when rotating the skew adjustment motor by a rotation amount corresponding to a half period of position change of the optical element from an arbitrary position of the optical element, average value of the position change of the optical element before and after rotating the skew adjustment motor is substantially the same as average value of the position change of the optical element per one period. Shukuya’463 teaches rotates the skew adjustment motor in a fixed direction so that the position of the optical element changes periodically (Fig.6-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Abe’191 according to the teaching of Shukuya’463 to rotate the skew adjustment motor in a fixed direction because this will allow the skew adjustment to be perform more effectively. The combination of Abe’191 and Shukuya’463 does not teach when rotating the skew adjustment motor by a rotation amount corresponding to a half period of position change of the optical element from an arbitrary position of the optical element, average value of the position change of the optical element before and after rotating the skew adjustment motor is substantially the same as average value of the position change of the optical element per one period. Since Abe’191 has suggested to calculate the shift amount and correction value according to the test pattern image (Fig.10) and Shukuya’463 teaches rotates the skew adjustment motor in a fixed direction so that the position of the optical element changes periodically (Fig.6-2), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of to recognize to calculate a skew shift amount such that rotating the skew adjustment motor by a rotation amount corresponding to a half period of position change of the optical element from an arbitrary position of the optical element which enable the average value of the position change of the optical element (Fig.1, item 101 in Abe’191) before and after rotating the skew adjustment motor is substantially the same as average value of the position change of the optical element per one period (when rotating the skew adjustment motor by a rotation amount corresponding to a half period of position change of the optical element from an arbitrary position of the optical element, average value of the position change of the optical element before and after rotating the skew adjustment motor is substantially the same as average value of the position change of the optical element per one period) because this will an optical scanning device to adjust the skew motor and calculates rotation based on this consistent relationship. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Abe’191 and Shukuya’463 to calculate a skew shift amount such that rotating the skew adjustment motor by a rotation amount corresponding to a half period of position change of the optical element from an arbitrary position of the optical element which enable the average value of the position change of the optical element (Fig.1, item 101 in Abe’191) before and after rotating the skew adjustment motor is substantially the same as average value of the position change of the optical element per one period (when rotating the skew adjustment motor by a rotation amount corresponding to a half period of position change of the optical element from an arbitrary position of the optical element, average value of the position change of the optical element before and after rotating the skew adjustment motor is substantially the same as average value of the position change of the optical element per one period) because this will an optical scanning device to adjust the skew motor and calculates rotation based on this consistent relationship. With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, Abe’191 teaches wherein the skew adjustment motor is a stepping motor whose rotation amount can be adjusted by the number of drive pulses (paragraph 115). With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, Abe’191 teaches wherein the optical element (Fig.1, item 101) is the plane mirror closest to the image carrier [regarding to the intermediate transfer belt (Fig.1, item 130)]. With respect to claim 6, Abe’191 teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig.1) comprising: one or more image carriers [regarding to the intermediate transfer belt (Fig.1, item 130)] having a surface on which a photosensitive layer is formed (paragraph 152); a charging device that charges the image carrier at a predetermined surface potential (paragraph 40); and the optical scanning device (Fig.1) according to claim 1, which exposes the surface of the image carrier charged by the charging device, so as to form an electrostatic latent image whose charge is decreased (Fig.1). Claim objection Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the skew amounts at a first point, a second point, and a third point, in which the rotation amount of the skew adjustment motor increases in order of the first, second, and third points, obtained by equally dividing the position change of the plane mirror per a half period into two, are represented by SkewA, SkewB, and SkewC, respectively, the control unit checks a large or small relationship between SkewB and average value SkewA_C of SkewA and SkewC, in a first reference position adjustment for returning the optical element to the reference position in an interval in which the skew amount decreases with respect to rotation direction of the skew adjustment motor, if SkewB < SkewA_C holds, the control unit rotates the skew adjustment motor by rotation amount obtained by adding a second rotation amount, which corresponds to a half period of the position change of the optical element, to a first rotation amount corresponding to (SkewA-SkewC)/2, while if SkewB ≥ SkewA_C holds, the control unit rotates the skew adjustment motor by a third rotation amount corresponding to (SkewC-SkewA)/2, and in a second reference position adjustment for returning the optical element to the reference position in an interval in which the skew amount increases with reference to the rotation direction of the skew adjustment motor, if SkewB < SkewA_C holds, the control unit rotates the skew adjustment motor by the first rotation amount, while if SkewB ≥ SkewA_C holds, the control unit rotates the skew adjustment motor by rotation amount obtained by adding the second rotation amount to the third rotation amount.” Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a objected base claim 2 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein in the first reference position adjustment, if the sum of the first rotation amount and the second rotation amount is more than the rotation amount corresponding to the half period of the position change of the optical element, the skew adjustment motor is rotated by rotation amount obtained by subtracting a fourth rotation amount, which corresponds to one period of the position change of the optical element, from the sum of the first rotation amount and the second rotation amount, and in the second reference position adjustment, if the sum of the third rotation amount and the second rotation amount is more than the rotation amount corresponding to the half period of the position change of the optical element, the skew adjustment motor is rotated by rotation amount obtained by subtracting the fourth rotation amount from the sum of the third rotation amount and the second rotation amount.” Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 19, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603178
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR SUPPORTING MEDICAL DECISIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597162
SYSTEM CALIBRATION USING REMOTE SENSOR DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592095
METHOD AND SYSTEM OF DETERMINING SHAPE OF A TABLE IN A DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586398
Detecting a Homoglyph in a String of Characters
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567271
PICTURE RECOGNITION METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
53%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+30.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 590 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