DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piatt et al. (2015/0015634) in view of Conrow et al. (2003/0133000), Hoover et al. (2011/0102817) and Yasumoto (2006/0269337).
Regarding claim 1, Piatt teaches an image forming apparatus comprising:
an image forming unit (fig. 16, item 16) provided with a plurality of nozzles (fig. 16, see nozzles) for ejecting ink and configured to form an image on the sheet using the ink ejected from the plurality of nozzles (see fig. 16);
a reader (fig. 16, item 88) configured to read the sheet on which the image is formed by the image forming unit ([0074]-[0075]); and
a controller ([0062]) configured to control the image forming unit to form a test image (fig. 16, item 82) on a sheet (fig. 16, item 60), and determine a misalignment of a first direction (fig. 16, cross-track direction) in which the plurality of nozzles are arranged with respect to a second direction (fig. 16, in-track direction) based on a result of reading the sheet read by the reader and on which the test image is formed (fig. [0074]-[0075]).
Piatt teaches printing on a continuous sheet of media, not a sheet that is carried by a belt. Piatt also teaches wherein printing on a continuous sheet and printing on a sheet carried by a belt are obvious variants ([0047]). For purposes of this rejection, it would have been obvious to use a belt to transport cut sheets instead of printing on a continuous web of media because doing so would amount to using one obvious variant over another.
Piatt does not teach or a memory on which data regarding a tilt of the reader is stored. Conrow teaches a memory on which data regarding a tilt of the reader is stored and wherein the data is an amount of the tilt of the reader with respect to a conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet, the test image includes reference images formed in four corner regions of the sheet (Conrow, see fig. 1, [0008]-[0009], [0082], [0084], [0178]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a tilt adjusting/storing technique of the type disclosed by Conrow to the reader disclosed by Piatt because doing so would allow for proper calibration of the reader, thereby ensuring proper determination of the position of the test image.
Upon combination of Conrow with Piatt, the resultant device would determine the misalignment of the first direction based on data stored in the memory.
Piatt in view of Conrow does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine a first tilt between a leading end side of the sheet in the conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet and a straight line connecting a first reference image included in the reference images and a second reference image included in the reference images, based on the result of reading the sheet on which the test image read by the reader is formed;
determine a second tilt between a rear end side of the sheet in the conveyance direction and a straight line connecting a third reference image included in the reference images and a fourth reference image included in the reference images based on result of reading the sheet on which the test image read by the reader is formed. Hoover teaches this (Hoover, see fig. 1, Note that corners of fiducial mark 101 constitute first through fourth reference images, and straight lines between first and second and third and fourth reference images are compared at angles to the edges of the sheet 34 to determine first and second tilts between the leading edge of the image and the leading edge of the sheet and the trailing edge of the image and trailing edge of the sheet, respectively). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine first and second tilts with the approach disclosed by Hoover in the device disclosed by Piatt in view of Conrow because doing so would allow for reliable calculation of leading and trailing edge tilts of the image.
Piatt in view of Conrow and Hoover does not teach wherein determining an average of the first tilt and the second tilt; and determine the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction. Yasumoto teaches averaging skews of leading and trailing edges of a sheet (Yasumoto, [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the averaging technique disclosed by Yasumoto in the device disclosed by Piatt in view of Conrow because doing so would allow for more precise detection of skew amounts and correction.
Upon combination of Yasumoto with the device of Piatt in view of Conrow and Hoover, the resultant device would necessarily subtract a tilt amount of the reader from the average. That is, because the reader is tilted, and the amount of tilt is known, one of skill in the art would know that the reader tilt amount must be subtracted from the average to obtain an accurate result.
Regarding claim 2, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a shape of an image to be formed on a sheet by the image forming unit, based on the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction (Piatt, [0120]-[0123], Note that modifying the image planes changes the shape).
Regarding claim 3, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second direction is a conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet (Piatt, see fig. 16).
Regarding claim 4, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the tilt of the reader is a tilt of the reader with respect to a conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet (Conrow, [0008]-[0009], Note that this language does not narrow the scope. That is, a tilt of one thing with respect to a direction could mean anything as every object can be said to be tilted with respect to any direction).
Regarding claim 5, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet, based on the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction (Conrow, [0160], Note that adjusting orientation of sheets constitutes “adjusting a conveyance direction).
Regarding claim 6, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust an ejection timing at which the ink is ejected from the plurality of nozzles, based on the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction (Piatt, [0120]-[0123], Note that any change in image data necessarily entails adjusting ejecting timing).
Regarding claim 8, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to transform an image to be formed by the image forming apparatus, based on the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction (Piatt, [0120]-[0123], Note that image data is changed to account for the skew).
Regarding claim 9, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control the reader to read a calibration chart for detecting a tilt of the reader, and generate the data based on a result obtained by the reader reading the calibration chart (Conrow, [0082]).
Regarding claim 10, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine a tilt of the test image on the sheet based on the result of reading the sheet on which the test image is formed, and determine the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction based on the data stored in the memory and the tilt of the test image on the sheet (Piatt, [0074]-[0075], Note that, upon combination of Conrow with Piatt, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 11, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the data is an amount of the tilt of the reader with respect to a conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet, and the controller is further configured to determine the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction by subtracting the tilt amount from the tilt of the test image on the sheet (Conrow, [0082]).
Regarding claim 13, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the data is an amount of the tilt of the reader with respect to a conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet, the test image includes reference images formed on a leading end side of the sheet in the conveyance direction, and the controller is further configured to: determine a tilt between a leading end side of the sheet in the conveyance direction and a straight line connecting a first reference image included in the reference images and a second reference image included in the reference images, based on the result of reading the sheet on which the test image read by the reader is formed; and determine the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction by subtracting the tilt amount of the reader from the tilt between the leading end side and the straight line (Conrow, see fig. 13, S1080, [0082]).
Regarding claim 14, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the data is an amount of the tilt of the reader with respect to a conveyance direction in which the belt member conveys the sheet, the test image includes reference images formed on a rear end side of the sheet in the conveyance direction, and the controller is further configured to: determine a tilt between a rear end side of the sheet in the conveyance direction and a straight line connecting a first reference image included in the reference images and a second reference image included in the reference images, based on the result of reading the sheet on which the test image read by the reader is formed; and determine the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction by subtracting the tilt amount of the reader from the tilt between the rear end side and the straight line (Conrow, see fig. 13, S1120, [0082]).
Regarding claim 15, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image forming unit repeatedly forms the test image on a plurality of sheets, and the controller is further configured to determine the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction based on the data stored in the memory and results of reading the plurality of sheets read by the reader and on which the test images are formed (Piatt, see fig. 16, Note that, upon substituting a belt for transporting cut sheets for a continuous web feed system, the resultant device would meet the limitations).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muir et al. (2014/0118433).
Regarding claim 7, Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1. Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a mounting angle of the image forming apparatus, based on the misalignment of the first direction with respect to the second direction. Muir teaches this (Muir, see fig. 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date of the claimed invention to adjust the mounting angle of printheads according to skew amount, as disclosed by Muir, in the device disclosed by Piatt in view of Conrow, Hoover and Yasumoto because doing so would allow for yet another measure to mitigate skew.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7/13/2026 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights