DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims now recite wherein “in a situation in which the mirror motor is rotating in the target rotating speed range, counting…a first number of times…that the rotating speed of the mirror motor is outside the target rotating speed range.” This does not seem to make sense. If the mirror motor is in the target rotating speed range, it would then be impossible for the mirror motor to outside the target rotating speed range, and thus it would not be possible to count a number of times of the determining that the rotating speed of the mirror motor us outside the target rotating speed range.
Further, the claims now recite wherein “in a situation in which the mirror motor is rotating in the target rotating speed range, counting…a second number of times…that the mirror motor returns outside the target rotating speed range.” This does not seem to make sense. If the mirror motor is in the target rotating speed range, it would then be impossible for the mirror motor to outside the target rotating speed range thereby allowing for return from outside the range, and thus it would not be possible to count a number of times of the determining the mirror motor returns from outside the target rotating speed range. Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claims 1, 10 and 17, they are also rejected on this basis.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. (5,298,840) in view of Dan (2006/0033804).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, Yoshino teaches an image forming apparatus and method configured to scan light on a photoconductive body with a rotated by a mirror motor and perform image formation, the image forming apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (fig. 1) configured to:
after the motor is started and shifts to steady rotation (fig. 2(a), target speed) in a target rotating speed range (fig. 2(a), range from lower limit speed to upper limit speed), determine, repeatedly at a regular interval, whether rotating speed of the motor is within the target rotating speed range (see fig. 2(b));
in a situation in which the mirror motor is rotating in the target rotating speed range, count, with a first counter, a first number of times of the determining that the rotating speed of the mirror is outside the target rotating speed range, and in a situation in which the mirror motor is rotating in the target rotating speed range, count, with a second counter, a second number of times of the determining that the rotating speed of the mirror returns from outside the target rotating speed range with within the target rotating speed range (see fig. 2);
when the first number of times reaches a first specified continuous number of times, determine that failure of the motor occurred (see fig. 2, note at a “failure” is being determined as any detection of the rotating speed being outside of the range); and
a storage configured to, when the second number of times is less than a second specified continuous number of times, store the number of times (see fig. 2),
when the second number of times in the storage reaches the second specified continuous number of times, determine that an abnormality sign before the mirror motor breaks down has occurred (see fig. 2).
Yoshino does not teach wherein the motor is a mirror motor. Dan teaches this (Dan, [0106], fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the motor control technique disclosed by Yoshino to the mirror motor disclosed by Dan because doing so would amount to combining a specific type of motor with a specific motor control technique to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 18, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 10, wherein the storage includes a counter (Yoshino, fig. 1, item 17) configured to count a number of times the rotating speed of the mirror motor returns from outside of the target rotating speed range to within the target rotating speed range less than the specified continuous number of times (Yoshino, see fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3, 13 and 19, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 13, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
reset the first counter according to the determination by the at least one processor that the rotating speed of the mirror motor is within the target rotating speed range (Yoshino, col. 4, lines 40-67).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus and method according to claims 3 and 13, wherein
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus according to claims 1 and 15, wherein the motor outputs a rotation synchronous signal (Yoshino, fig. 2, signal G) when rotating within the target rotating speed range, and the at least one processor is configured to detect the rotation synchronous signal at the regular interval to determine whether the rotating speed of the mirror motor is within the target rotating speed range (Yoshino, col. 6, lines 48-57).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus and method according to claims 1 and 16, further comprising a communication circuit configured to transmit the number of times stored by the storage unit to a server apparatus via a network (Yoshino, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the mirror comprises a polygon mirror (Dan, fig. 3, item 19).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the mirror motor comprises a polygon mirror motor (Dan, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the photoconductive body comprises a photoconductive drum (Dan, fig. 2, item 27).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshino in view of Dan teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light scanned on the photoconductive body is laser light (Dan, [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to further specify the operation of the device, but the amendment fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The rejections above have been updated to reflect the changes to the claims. The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
