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.
Specification
The Title has been updated according to the amended Specification dated 08/03/2026. The objection to the Title has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an image forming portion, an image bearing member, a charging unit, an exposing unit, a developing unit, a driving portion, a sheet support portion, a sheet blowing portion, a sheet feeding portion, a control portion in claim 1; a detection portion in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0219776 to Iwami in view of US 2016/0131999 to Kojima et al.
Regarding claim 1, Iwami teaches an image forming apparatus (600) configured to form an image on a sheet (S), comprising:
an image forming portion (201B) including a rotatable image bearing member (212), a charging unit (213) configured to charge the image bearing member, an exposing unit (122) configured to expose the image bearing member charged by the charging unit to form an electrostatic latent image on the image bearing member, and a developing unit (214) configured to develop the electrostatic latent image formed on the image bearing member using developer [0025];
a driving portion (not shown) configured to rotationally drive the image bearing member;
a sheet support portion (514) configured to support the sheet [0036];
a sheet blowing portion (511a,511b) configured to perform a blowing operation of blowing air to the sheet supported on the sheet support portion [0037];
a sheet feeding portion (506) configured to perform a feeding operation of feeding the sheet supported on the sheet support portion [0035]; and
a control portion (100) configured, every time the sheet feeding portion performs the feeding operation for a predetermined number of sheets in a continuous image forming of of forming images on a plurality of sheets continuously, to execute a mode in which, in a predetermined period after the sheet fed by the sheet feeding portion passes through a transfer position at which a toner image formed by the image forming portion is transferred to the sheet and before a succeeding sheet fed by the sheet feeding portion passes through the transfer position, the blowing operation is performed in a state where the feeding operation is stopped (Fig.7, feeding is stopped every predetermined number of sheets to execute air blowing operation [0055-0058]), wherein
the predetermined period when the control portion executes the mode in the continuous image forming job is longer than the predetermined period when the control portion does not execute the mode in the continuous image forming job (inherent result of executing path S12[Wingdings font/0xE0]S14 when S17=YES),
Iwami appears silent about stopping rotation of the image bearing member during the mode. Kojima teaches stopping a driving motor for the photoconductive drum when an inter-sheet time including a post-processing operation is longer than the time to stop/start image formation to prevent the lives of the units, supplies, and parts of the image forming apparatus from being shortened (Fig.8, [0076]). Thus, in a case execution of the blowing operation significantly extends the inter-sheet time (i.e. predetermined period), 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 Iwami and Kojima such that
the control portion is configured to control the driving portion such that there is a period in which rotation of the image bearing member is stopped during the predetermined period when the control portion executes the mode in the continuous image forming job, and
the control portion is configured to control the driving portion to perform the rotation of the image bearing member during the predetermined period when the control portion does not execute the mode in the continuous image forming job
for at least the purpose of reducing wear of the image bearing member without impacting productivity, while the blowing operation is executed.
The combination further renders obvious,
(claim 2) The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control portion is configured to control the driving portion to stop the rotation of the image bearing member during the mode, in a case where a time for which the sheet blowing portion performs the blowing operation in the predetermined period is equal to or longer than a predetermined time (Kojima: [0073]).
(claim 3) The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control portion is configured to execute the mode without stopping the rotation of the image bearing member during the mode, in a case where the time for which the sheet blowing portion performs the blowing operation in the predetermined period is less than the predetermined time (Kojima teaches the drive motor is not stopped when the inter-sheet time is short).
(claim 4) The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control portion is configured to execute the mode without stopping the rotation of the image bearing member during the mode, in a case where a time for which the sheet blowing portion performs the blowing operation in the predetermined period is less than a predetermined time (Kojima teaches the drive motor is not stopped when the inter-sheet time is short).
(claim 6) The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sheet blowing portion is configured to perform the blowing operation in the predetermined period, in a case where the sheet supported on the sheet support portion is a predetermined sheet (Iwami: coated paper/smooth surface sheets [0002, 0042]).
(claim 7) The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an image forming apparatus body including the image forming portion, wherein the sheet support portion is a manual feed tray provided on a side surface of the image forming apparatus body (Iwami: [0029]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0219776 to Iwami in view of US 2016/0131999 to Kojima et al., and further in view of US 2020/0033800 to Aoki.
Regarding claim 5, Iwami in view of Kojima teach an image forming apparatus according to claim 1, but appear silent about a detecting portion as claimed.
Aoki discloses an image forming apparatus including a sheet storage portion (507) in which a plurality of sheets is stored, a sheet-loosening fan (611a) which sprays air on the sheet stored in the sheet storage portion, a detection portion (614) configured to detect environmental humidity and a controller (301) which controls the drive of the fan according to a detection result of the detection portion [0063]. Spray of warm wind on the sheet has an advantage in increasing an effect of relieving adhesion between sheets caused by moisture and loosening the sheets. On the other hand, an excessive difference in a moisture content between a sprayed portion and a non-sprayed portion of the sheet causes uneven sheet deformation to generate sheet wrinkles in moisture evaporation and expansion and contraction occurring in the course of heating and pressurizing when the sheet passes through a fixing device [0064]. Driving of the fan during a print job is OFF in low temp/low humidity environments in which a variation in moisture content of the sheet is low (Figs. 8-10, [0093-0122]).
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 an image forming apparatus according to claim 1 to further comprise a detection portion configured to detect environmental humidity, wherein the sheet blowing portion is configured to (i) perform the blowing operation for a first time in the predetermined period in a case where the environmental humidity detected by the detection portion is a first humidity and (ii) perform the blowing operation for a second time longer than the first time in the predetermined period in a case where the environmental humidity detected by the detection portion is a second humidity higher than the first humidity, for at least the purpose of controlling blown air so to effectively reduce moisture content difference in a sheet surface according to environmental conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive. The applicants point 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0189922 is relevant to the teachings of an image forming apparatus including a blowing unit that blows gas onto the recording medium loaded on the loading unit before the image formation processing on the recording medium starts; and a processor that sets, based on adjustment time before printing and blowing time that is a time in which the gas is blown, start timing of at least one of blowing start timing that is a timing at which blowing of the gas starts and adjustment processing start timing that is a timing at which the adjustment processing starts.
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 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