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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/23/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The Abstract has been updated according to the amended Specification dated 12/23/2025. The objection to the Abstract has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,873,427 to Matsuda et al.
Matsuda teaches:
(claim 1) An image forming apparatus (Fig.2) comprising: an image forming part (52); a paper feeding part (252-257) to transfer a printing paper to the image forming part; a scanning part (50); and a processor (401 Fig.3; 501 Fig.7), wherein the processor is to, based on a copying instruction of a document being input (S12=Y, Fig.11), control the scanning part to initiate scanning for the document to be copied (S34, Fig.12), and control the paper feeding part to initiate transfer of the printing paper for printing the document to be copied (S32, Fig.12) before the scanning is completed (S23=Y, Fig.11) (col. 10 line 57 – col. 11 line 44).
(claim 2) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is to control the image forming part to perform at least one process among processes of an image forming job performed by the image forming part while the scanning of the document is in progress, and wherein the processes of the image forming job include at least one of a charging process of charging a photosensitive body, an exposure process of forming a latent image on the photosensitive body, a developing process of developing the latent image into an image, a transfer process of transferring the image to the printing paper, or a fixing process of fixing the image transferred to the printing paper (S35=Y, Fig.12).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Matsuda et al. teach the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(claim 15) A non-transitory recording medium (flush ROM 404, Fig.3) storing instructions for performing a processing method of a document of an image forming apparatus, the non-transitory recording medium comprising: instructions to, based on a copying instruction of a document being input, initiate scanning of a document; instructions to initiate transfer of the printing paper for printing the document to be copied before the scanning of the document is completed; and instructions to perform at least one process among processes of an image forming job while the scanning of the document is in progress, wherein the processes of the image forming job include at least one of a charging process of charging a photosensitive body, an exposure process of forming a latent image on the photosensitive body, a developing process of developing the latent image into an image, a transfer process of transferring the image to the printing paper, or a fixing process of fixing the image transferred to the printing paper (S35=Y, Fig.12; col. 10 line 57 – col. 11 line 44).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,800,482 to Hosaka et al.
Hosaka teaches:
(claim 1) An image forming apparatus (Fig.2) comprising: an image forming part (46+25+9+10); a paper feeding part (16-18) to transfer a printing paper to the image forming part; a scanning part (13+14); and a processor (MC, Fig.3), wherein the processor is to, based on a copying instruction of a document being input (print start SW at pulse 0), control the scanning part to initiate scanning for the document to be copied (scanner servo motor S1 at 1000 pulses), and control the paper feeding part to initiate transfer of the printing paper for printing the document to be copied (sheet feed solenoid S1 at pulse 0) before the scanning is completed (Fig.6-1).
(claim 2) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is to control the image forming part to perform at least one process among processes of an image forming job performed by the image forming part while the scanning of the document is in progress, and wherein the processes of the image forming job include at least one of a charging process of charging a photosensitive body, an exposure process of forming a latent image on the photosensitive body, a developing process of developing the latent image into an image, a transfer process of transferring the image to the printing paper, or a fixing process of fixing the image transferred to the printing paper (Fig. 6-1; charging corona S1, exposure lamp S1, transfer corona S1 are performed while scanner servo motor S1 is in progress).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Hosaka et al. teach the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(claim 15) A non-transitory recording medium (flush ROM 404, Fig.3) storing instructions for performing a processing method of a document of an image forming apparatus, the non-transitory recording medium comprising: instructions to, based on a copying instruction of a document being input, initiate scanning of a document; instructions to initiate transfer of the printing paper for printing the document to be copied before the scanning of the document is completed; and instructions to perform at least one process among processes of an image forming job while the scanning of the document is in progress, wherein the processes of the image forming job include at least one of a charging process of charging a photosensitive body, an exposure process of forming a latent image on the photosensitive body, a developing process of developing the latent image into an image, a transfer process of transferring the image to the printing paper, or a fixing process of fixing the image transferred to the printing paper (col. 3 lines 7-21).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016-082445 to Kuroda.
Kuroda teaches:
(claim 1) An image forming apparatus (130, Fig.2) comprising: an image forming part (printer 140, interpreted as electrophotographic based on cited background art); a paper feeding part (201) to transfer a printing paper to the image forming part; a scanning part (130); and a processor (110), wherein the processor is to, based on a copying instruction of a document being input (at T606), control the scanning part to initiate scanning (process 400) for the document to be copied, and control the paper feeding part to initiate transfer of the printing paper for printing the document to be copied before the scanning is completed [0020, 0023].
(claim 2) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is to control the image forming part to perform at least one process among processes of an image forming job performed by the image forming part while the scanning of the document is in progress, and wherein the processes of the image forming job include at least one of a charging process of charging a photosensitive body, an exposure process of forming a latent image on the photosensitive body, a developing process of developing the latent image into an image, a transfer process of transferring the image to the printing paper, or a fixing process of fixing the image transferred to the printing paper [0023].
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kuroda teaches the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(claim 15) A non-transitory recording medium (RAM/ROM/HDD) storing instructions for performing a processing method of a document of an image forming apparatus, the non-transitory recording medium comprising: instructions to, based on a copying instruction of a document being input, initiate scanning of a document; instructions to initiate transfer of the printing paper for printing the document to be copied before the scanning of the document is completed; and instructions to perform at least one process among processes of an image forming job while the scanning of the document is in progress, wherein the processes of the image forming job include at least one of a charging process of charging a photosensitive body, an exposure process of forming a latent image on the photosensitive body, a developing process of developing the latent image into an image, a transfer process of transferring the image to the printing paper, or a fixing process of fixing the image transferred to the printing paper [0011, 0020, 0023].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,873,427 to Matsuda et al., as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2023/0056964 to Mayer et al.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuda teaches an image forming apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a memory (402-405, Fig.3) but appears silent about a standard scanning time. Mayer discloses an image forming apparatus (100, Fig.1) comprising: a memory (108, Fig.1) to store a standard scanning time which is a time spent until scanning a part of a document, wherein a processor (112) is configured to control a print start time with the scan end time of the scan engine [0031]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the image forming apparatus of Matsuda such that the memory stores a standard scanning time which is a time spent until scanning a part of a document, and the processor is to: control the paper feeding part to initiate the transfer of the printing paper before the standard scanning time stored in the memory passes after the scanning was initiated in the scanning part, and based on the standard scanning time passing, control the image forming part to perform the at least one process, for at least the purpose of avoiding delays in printing a job.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda teaches the image forming apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a memory (402-405, Fig.3) to store information on a fixing temperature of a fixing unit performing the fixing process (inherent to control of apparatus). Matsuda appears silent about a timing for the processor is to control the image forming part to initiate a preparing operation of the developing unit. Mayer discloses an image forming apparatus (100, Fig.1) comprising: a memory (108, Fig.1) to store information on a fixing temperature of a fixing unit performing the fixing process [0026], wherein a processor (112) may subtract a determined time period (e.g., for the fuser 104 to heat to the fusing temperature) from a scan end time so that, when the scan engine has completed scanning (e.g., a document), the fuser has just reached the fusing temperature, and hence there is no delay in printing the print job from the scan engine [0031]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the image forming apparatus of Matsuda such that the processor is to, based on the temperature of the fixing unit reaching the fixing temperature after the scanning was initiated in the scanning part, control the image forming part to initiate a preparing operation of the developing unit, for at least the purpose of avoiding delays in printing a job.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Matsuda in view of Mayer, as combined above regarding claims 4 and 6 respectively, teach the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2016-082445 to Kuroda, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2023/0056964 to Mayer et al.
Regarding claim 5, Kuroda teaches an image forming apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: a memory (114) to store information on a preparation time of a developing unit to perform the developing process (printer initialization time DT603b) [0037]. Kuroda appears silent about an entire scanning time being stored in the memory. Mayer discloses an image forming apparatus (100, Fig.1) comprising: a memory (208, Fig.2) to store information on a predetermined scan engine time period (308), wherein a processor (112) may subtract a determined time period for initialization of the print engine (e.g., for the fuser 104 to heat to the fusing temperature) from the predetermined time period that the scan engine takes to perform a scan, to generally align the scan end time, the print engine ready time, and the print start time [0048, 0055]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuroda and Mayer such that in an image forming apparatus according to claim 2, the processor is to, based on a stand-by time passing after the scanning was initiated in the scanning part, control the image forming part to initiate a preparing operation of the developing unit, and wherein the stand-by time includes a time in which the preparation time was subtracted from the entire scanning time, for at least the purpose of avoiding delays in printing a job.
Regarding claim 12, Kuroda in view of Mayer teaches the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,873,427 to Matsuda et al., as respectively applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2014/0061995 to Shimazu.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuda teaches an image forming apparatus of claim 1, but appears silent about an additional paper discharging part distinguished from a paper discharging part for normal printing output. Shimazu teaches a paper sheet conveyance apparatus and image forming apparatus comprising a jam sheet discharge tray 47, different from sheet discharge trays 45 and 46 for sheet having an image, as the discharge destination of a paper sheet when jam has occurred on the paper sheet conveyance path 40 before image transfer. A CPU determines discharge to the jam sheet discharge tray 47 according to an error determination (Figs 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Matsuda and Shimazu to arrive at an image forming apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising an additional paper discharging part distinguished from a paper discharging part for normal printing output, wherein the processor is to, based on the scanning of the document failing after the transfer of the printing paper was initiated, discharge the printing paper to the additional paper discharging part, for at least the purpose of recovering materials and preventing printing defects in the apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, Matsuda in view of Shimazu teaches the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,873,427 to Matsuda et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JPH02864.
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda teaches an image forming apparatus according to claim 2 bu appears silent about a minimum number of scan strips. JPH02864 teaches an image forming apparatus including a reading device (1), a drawing signal memory (2), a printer (3), a recording form conveyance motor (5), and a control circuit (6). The reading device (signal A) and the recording form conveyance motor (signal C) are simultaneously driven until the minimum number of scan strips are accumulated in the memory. Thereafter, a print signal (D) is transmitted to the printer (Fig.2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings Matsuda and JPH02864 such that an image forming apparatus according to claim 2 further comprises: a memory to store a minimum number of scan strips, wherein the processor is to: control the paper feeding part to initiate the transfer of the printing paper before scanning is performed in the scanning part as much as the minimum number of scan strips stored in the memory, and based on the scanning being performed as much as the minimum number of scan strips in the scanning part, control the image forming part to perform the at least one process, for at least the purpose of managing power demands in the apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, Matsuda in view of JPH02864 teaches the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that none of the cited reference disclose overlapping of paper feeding with scanning for the same copy job.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Matsuda, see vertical dash line on reproduced Fig.8 below, showing paper passing through the drums before completion of main scan.
PNG
media_image2.png
594
913
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Hosaka, see vertical dash line on reproduced Fig.6-1 below, showing active corona transfer for sheet S1, which requires paper to have been fed, starting before completion of scanner forward rotation.
PNG
media_image3.png
260
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Kuroda, see vertical dash line on reproduced Fig.4a below, showing the print process 402, which requires paper to have been fed, starting before completion of the scanning process 400.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0216084 discloses an image forming apparatus comprising a paper feeder controller, a scanner and a printing controller; the scanner executes a manuscript scanning process for optically scanning a manuscript and a graphics editing process for editing scanned image, transmits a first paper feeding start request at timing between start of the manuscript scanning process and completion of the graphics editing process, and transmits a second paper feeding start request after the graphics editing process is completed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights