DETAILED ACTION
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, 3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabata et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0048771 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawabata et al. discloses
a sheet feeder (21 and associated pick roller, Fig. 1) in which sheets are to be loaded;
a conveyor (i.e. the roller pair sets along 22, Fig. 1) configured to feed each of the sheets from the sheet feeder;
a sensor (90) configured to detect a sheet property of the each of the sheets conveyed by the conveyor;
an image forming portion (10) configured to form an image on each of the sheets conveyed by the conveyor; and
a controller (101) configured to identify a sheet type at start of a job for forming an image on a plurality of sheets (i.e. at S02 in Fig. 7, also see “at the start of the job” in [0059]) and control the image forming portion to form an image on each of the plurality of sheets in accordance with an operating condition based on the sheet property detected with the sensor in a case where the job for forming an image on the plurality of sheets is executed ([0036]),
wherein, in a case where image formation is suspended before completion of the job, the controller is configured to control, depending on a factor responsible for the suspension of the image formation, whether to redetect a sheet property with the sensor upon resumption of the job is made (i.e. see [0105], where sheets run out/job is suspended, such that at S21 in Fig. 7 a decision is made whether to replenish/redetect in the YES outcome or to not replenish/not redetect/switch cassettes in the NO outcome, wherein the job is resumed in either outcome). It is noted that "depending on" is broad and does not require any specific correlation. The above outcomes both "depend on" the "sheet run out" factor.
wherein the controller is configured to, in a case where the factor responsible for the suspension is a sheet-out condition in the sheet feeder (i.e. S21=YES in Fig. 7), reidentify a sheet type based on the sheet property detected with the sensor (i.e. S22-S26), and
wherein the controller is configured to, in a case where the factor responsible for the suspension is not the sheet-out condition in the sheet feeder (i.e. a different user logging in or a job interrupt, [0104]), not reidentify the sheet type based on the sheet property detected with the sensor (i.e. the original thickness measurement value is saved then restored, see [0104]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kawabata et al. discloses
the controller is configured to compare the sheet type identified at start of the job to a sheet type reidentified at a time of the resumption of the job to determine whether a different type of sheet is loaded in the sheet feeder (S24-S26).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawabata et al. discloses
the controller is configured to, upon reidentifying a sheet type based on the sheet property, newly determine an operating condition (S11) based on the sheet property detected with the sensor.
Regarding Claim 7, Kawabata et al. discloses
compare the sheet type identified at start of the job to a sheet type reidentified at a time of the resumption of the job; and
control, in a case where it is determined that the same type of sheet is loaded in the sheet feeder, the imaging forming portion to form an image in accordance with the operating condition determined at the start of the job (i.e. where S11=NO).
Regarding Claim 8, Kawabata et al. discloses
the controller is configured to control, in a case where a different type of sheet is loaded in the sheet feeder, the image forming portion to form an image in accordance with the newly determined operating condition (S11=YES) upon reception of notification given by a user to proceed with the job under a state in which the different type of sheet is loaded (i.e. with the user input of Fig. 8 having previously been received).
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabata et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0048771 A1) in view of Shimizu (US Pub No. 2010/0092189 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawabata et al. does not disclose informing a user.
Shimizu discloses in a case where a different type of sheet is loaded in the sheet feeder, the controller is configured to inform a user that a different type of sheet is loaded ([0084]), for the purpose of setting correct sheet size.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawabata et al. by informing the user as disclosed by Shimizu, for the purpose of setting correct sheet size.
Regarding Claim 5, Kawabata et al. does not disclose a sheet presence/absence sensor.
Shimizu discloses a sheet presence/absence sensor (S2) for detecting sheets loaded in the sheet feeder,
wherein the controller is configured to detect the factor responsible for the suspension based on a detection result obtained from the sheet presence/absence sensor (absence/out of sheets, [0028]), for the purpose of replenishing sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawabata et al. by including a sheet presence/absence sensor as disclosed by Shimizu, for the purpose of replenishing sheets.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that “However, Kawabata et al. is silent as to a case where a stoppage factor other than running out of the sheet occurs.”, it is noted that Kawabata et al. discloses such a stoppage factor in the form of log in by a different user or a job interrupt as per [0104]. Shimizu is not relied upon for this limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 February 24, 2026