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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered.
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 § 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 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue US 2010/0239280 (Inoue) and Ishikawa US 2014/0212157 (Ishikawa).
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 (based on measured difference between the initial thickness and the current thickness, ¶0073) on the drum surface (FIG. 8);
perform the drum data erase using the erasure data to remove the residual colorant on the drum surface (¶0072-¶0083).
Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: generating erasure data the includes a pattern and 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. However this is a known technique. Ishikawa teaches generate erasure data that includes a pattern (i.e., protection image) that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface in response to the determination and the drum data erase to include causing the colorant components to transfer a colorant to the drum surface (i.e., protection image) according to the pattern of the erasure data (¶0073-¶0078). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method taught by Inoue to include the protection image taught by Ishikawa since Ishikawa teaches that the paper security print mode for overprinting the specific pattern on an image prevents duplication of an image (¶0056).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue and Ishikawa teach the printing device of claim 1. Furthermore Inoue teaches the printing device is a laser printer or a solid ink printer (¶0005).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue and Ishikawa teach the printing device of claim 1. Furthermore Inoue teaches 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 and Ishikawa teach the printing device of claim 3. Furthermore Inoue teaches 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 and Ishikawa teach the printing device of claim 1. Furthermore Inoue teaches 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 as compared to initial thickness);
perform the drum data erase to remove the residual colorant on the drum surface using the erasure data (¶0073-¶0083).
Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: generate erasure data that includes a pattern that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface in response to the command. However this technique is known. Ishikawa teaches generating erasure data that includes a pattern (protection image) that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface in response to the command (¶0056). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and method taught by Inoue to include the protection image taught by Ishikawa since Ishikawa teaches that the paper security print mode for overprinting the specific pattern on an image prevents duplication of an image (¶0056).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue and Ishikawa teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6. Inoue teaches 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
Inoue differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: transferring, by the controller, a second pattern of the erasure data to the drum surface, wherein the second pattern of erasure data includes a pattern that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface. However this technique is known. Ishikawa teaches transferring, by the controller, a second pattern (protection image) of the erasure data to the drum surface, wherein the second pattern of erasure data includes a pattern that will remove the residual colorant on the drum surface (¶0073-¶0078). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add to the method taught by Inoue to include the second protection image taught by Ishikawa since Ishikawa teaches that the paper security print mode for overprinting the specific pattern on an image prevents duplication of an image (¶0056).
Claims 8-11 and 13-16s are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue US 2010/0239280 (Inoue), Ishikawa US 2014/0212157 (Ishikawa) and Sumida US 4,851,878 (Sumida).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Inoue and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6. Inoue and Ishikawa differ 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 and Ishikawa teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6. Inoue and Ishikawa differ 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 and Ishikawa teach the method of claim 12. Inoue and Ishikawa differ 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 and Ishikawa teach the method of claim 12. Inoue and Ishikawa differ 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 and Ishikawa teach the printing device according to claim 1. Inoue and Ishikawa differ 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
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
Prosecution Insights