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.
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010-160185 to Watanabe et al. (cited in IDS dated 09/03/2024) in view of US 10,094,739 to Hayashi.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe teaches an image forming apparatus (100, Fig.1) comprising:
a rotatable photosensitive member (1);
a charging roller (2) configured to charge the photosensitive member;
an exposure light source (3) configured to emit light to expose the photosensitive member charged by the charging roller and to form a latent image;
a developing roller (4) configured to develop the latent image with tone;
a transfer roller (5) configured to transfer a toner image developed and formed by the developing roller to a recording material;
a pre-exposure unit (8) configured to expose a surface of the photosensitive member after the toner image is transferred to the recording material and before being charged by the charging roller; and
a controller (not shown) configured to control the pre-exposure unit,
wherein the pre-exposure unit includes a first substrate disposed adjacent to one end of the photosensitive member with respect to a longitudinal direction of the photosensitive member, the first substrate having mounted thereon a first light-emitting element arranged to emit light onto the surface of the photosensitive member from a side of the one end of the photosensitive member toward a vicinity of a center of the photosensitive roller with respect to the longitudinal direction; and a second substrate disposed adjacent to another end of the photosensitive member, the second substrate having mounted thereon a second light-emitting element arranged to emit light onto the surface of the photosensitive member from a side of the another end side of the photosensitive member toward the vicinity of the center of the photosensitive roller with respect to the longitudinal direction is mounted (Fig.3, pre-exposure device 8 has a red diode fixed to the base and is arranged on both sides in the longitudinal direction of the drum 1).
wherein the controller is configured to selectively execute a first mode and a second mode,
wherein, in the first mode during a printing process, the controller controls the first light emitting light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element to emit the light to expose the surface of the photosensitive member.
wherein the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element are disposed facing each other at both ends of the photosensitive member in the longitudinal direction (Fig.2).
Watanabe is silent about the controller determining a normal or failure state of the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element based on a detected electromotive voltage.
Hayashi discloses a light-emitting apparatus 100 that emits light at a rating by causing first laser diode 161 and second laser diode 162 to alternately oscillate, and detectors 107 alternately detect an electromotive force of first laser diode 161 in a non-radiation state, that is, not radiating laser light, and an electromotive force of second laser diode 162. Subsequently, when the electromotive force of one of the laser diodes becomes less than or equal to a predetermined third threshold, detectors 107 may inform an abnormality as status information, and controller 160 which has received the status information may interrupt the radiation of laser light by each of two radiation apparatuses 106 (Fig.6, col. 8 lines 51-63). Hayashi further teaches such check mode performed before the light-emitting apparatus is used in normal operation (col. 2 lines 20-25).
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 Hayashi into the apparatus of Watanabe such that,
wherein, in the second mode, the controller: controls the first light-emitting element to emit light; detects an electromotive voltage generated by the second light-emitting element when the second light-emitting element receives the light emitted by the first light-emitting element; determines, based on the detected electromotive voltage, whether the first light- emitting element is in a normal state or in a failure state; controls the second light-emitting element to emit light; detects an electromotive voltage generated by the first light-emitting element when the first light-emitting element receives the light emitted by the second light-emitting element; and determines, based on the detected electromotive voltage, whether the second light-emitting element is in a normal state or in a failure state, wherein the controller executes the second mode while the image forming apparatus is not performing the printing process, for at least the purpose of enabling diagnostics of the apparatus without the need for additional components and ensure proper operation before image formation.
The modification above further renders obvious:
(claim 6) The image forming apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the controller includes an input/output port to which each of the first light-emitting element and the second light-emitting element is connected, and wherein the controller switches the input/output port to operate as an output port when the first light-emitting element and the second
(claim 7) The image forming apparatus according to claim 6, wherein each of the first light-emitting element and the second.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant points to the features of claim 1 that they believe to be allowable and state that the cited art fails to teach these features. The Office respectfully disagrees and the rejection has been presented above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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