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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue US 2010/0239280 (Inoue).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a printing device, comprising:
a drum component comprising a drum surface (11c);
colorant components (13); and
a controller (51) to:
determine whether a drum data erase is to be performed based on residual colorant (of various thickness) on the drum surface (FIG. 8);
generate erasure data that includes a pattern (amount of thickness decrease) that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface in response to the determination (S1-s7, FIG. 8); and
perform the drum data erase using the erasure data to remove the residual colorant on the drum surface, the drum data erase to include causing the colorant components to transfer a colorant to the drum surface according to the pattern of the erasure data (¶0072-¶0083).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches the printing device of claim 1, wherein the printing device is a laser printer or a solid ink printer (¶0005).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue teaches the printing device of claim 1, wherein the printing device comprises a touchscreen, and wherein the controller is to cause the touchscreen to display a type of the drum data erase (¶0052).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue teaches the printing device of claim 3, wherein the type of the drum data erase indicates that the erasure data is transferred to the drum surface without printing the erasure data to a receiving medium (FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue teaches the printing device of claim 1, wherein the pattern obscures or erases a specified area of the drum surface (upper front, ¶0052).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing machine-readable instructions, which, when executed by a controller, cause the controller to:
receive a command to perform a drum data erase (s1);
based on residual colorant on a drum surface (i.e., thickness of colorant remaining on surface) generate erasure data that includes a pattern that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface in response to the command (s2-s7); and
perform the drum data erase to remove the residual colorant on the drum surface using the erasure data (¶0073-¶0083).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6, wherein the controller is to receive the command via a graphical user interface (¶0052).
Regarding claim 12, Inoue teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a controller of a printing device, a request to print a print job (s11);
printing, by the printing device, the print job (s11 YES);
determining, by the printing device, whether a drum data erase is to be performed based on residual colorant on a drum surface (thickness of photosensitive layer) from the print job (s12, FIG. 8);
transferring, by the controller, a first pattern of erasure data to the drum surface of a drum of the printing device (s13-s15);
wherein the first patter of erasure data includes a pattern that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface (s15-s16); and
transferring, by the controller, a second pattern of the erasure data to the drum surface (Yes to s17),
wherein the second pattern of erasure data includes a pattern that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface (s17 yes, through s13-s16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 8-11 and 13-16s are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue US 2010/0239280 (Inoue) and Sumida US 4,851,878 (Sumida).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Inoue teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6. Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the controller is to generate the erasure data using multiple alphanumeric characters, symbols, or a combination thereof and the controller is to cause the erasure data to be printed to a receiving medium. However this technique is known. Sumida teaches the controller is to generate the erasure data using multiple alphanumeric characters, symbols, or a combination thereof (FIG. 5) and the controller is to cause the erasure data to be printed to a receiving medium (C4 L38-58, FIG. 8 A&B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique taught by Sumida of using alphanumeric characters as the erasing pattern with the device taught Inoue since Sumida teaches that this technique conveys the advantage of allowing for charge to be erased at any position (Sumida C1 L60-65).
Regarding claims 10-11, Inoue teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6. Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the erasure data includes multiple patterns. However this technique is known. Sumida teaches the erasure data includes multiple patterns (FIG. 5). Furthermore Sumida teaches the erasure data includes “▓,” “O,” or a combination thereof (C4 L15-37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique taught by Sumida of using alphanumeric characters as the erasing pattern with the device taught Inoue since Sumida teaches that this technique conveys the advantage of allowing for charge to be erased at any position (Sumida C1 L60-65).
Regarding claims 13-14, Inoue teaches the method of claim 12. Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the first pattern includes multiple characters, and the second pattern includes the multiple characters of the first pattern having a different order. However this technique is known. Sumida teaches the first pattern includes multiple characters (FIG. 5) and the second pattern includes the multiple characters of the first pattern having a different order (C4 L38-58, FIG. 8 A&B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique taught by Sumida of using a first and second with the device taught Inoue since Sumida teaches that this technique conveys the advantage of allowing for charge to be erased at any position (Sumida C1 L60-65).
Regarding claim 15, Inoue teaches the method of claim 12. Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: generating, by the controller, the first pattern and generating, by the controller, the second pattern./ However this technique is known. Sumida teaches generating, by the controller, the first pattern and generating (FIG. 5), by the controller, the second pattern (C4 L38-58, FIG. 8 A&B). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique taught by Sumida of using a first and second erasing pattern with the device taught Inoue since Sumida teaches that this technique conveys the advantage of allowing for charge to be erased at any position (Sumida C1 L60-65).
Regarding claim 16, Inoue teaches the printing device according to claim 1. Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the erasure data includes “▓,” “O,” or a combination thereof. However this technique is known. Sumida teaches the erasure data includes “▓,” “O,” or a combination thereof (C4 L15-37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the technique taught by Sumida of using alphanumeric characters as the erasing pattern with the device taught Inoue since Sumida teaches that this technique conveys the advantage of allowing for charge to be erased at any position (Sumida C1 L60-65).
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 JESSICA L ELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9793. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Jr. Lindsay can be reached on (571)272-1674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA L ELEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852