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) 1-11 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, 2, 4, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasuya et al. US 2021/0084192 A1 (Kasuya).
Regarding claim 1, Kasuya teaches an image offset correction method of a duplex printing device (100) via a paper medium (140) to pass through an image processing device by a first path (312/316) and a second path (312/317) respectively, and the image offset correction method (FIG. 12) of the duplex printing device comprising steps as follows:
generating the first side alignment image (720, 710) on a first of the paper medium (FIG. 7).
in the first path (312/316), obtaining the first side alignment image of the paper medium (¶0138-¶0141);
generating the second side deviation image (720, 711) on a second side of the paper medium (FIG. 7);
in the second path (312/317), obtaining the second side deviation image of the paper medium (¶0138-¶0141);
calculating position deviation information according to the first side alignment image and the second side deviation image (¶0142-¶0146); and
transmitting a control signal to the image processing device according to the position deviation information (¶0154);
adjusting a light sensing position of the image processing device according to the control signal (s1208, FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 2, Kasuya teaches the image offset correction method of the duplex printing device according to claim 1, wherein calculating position deviation information according to the first side alignment image and the second side deviation image comprises a sub-step as follows:
performing position subtraction (the trapezoidal correction amount is a difference between distances between the correction marks, ¶0143) according to a position of the first side alignment image and a position of the second side deviation image to generate the position deviation information (¶0143-¶0145).
Regarding claim 4, Kasuya teaches a duplex printing device comprising:
a paper feed cassette (140) providing a paper medium to place;
a first conveyor module configured on a first path (312/316);
a second conveyor module configured on a second path (312/317), wherein the second path partially overlaps the first path, and a part of the second path overlapping the first path constitutes an overlapping path (FIG. 3);
an image processing device (151) disposed on the overlapping path; and
a processor (110) connected to the image processing device;
wherein the image forming processing device generates the first side alignment image (720, 710) on a first of the paper medium (FIG. 7);
the image processing device obtains a first side alignment image of the paper medium when the paper medium passes through the first path (¶0138-¶0141);
the image processing device generates the second side deviation image (720, 711) on a second side of the paper medium (FIG. 7);
the image processing device obtains a second side deviation image of the paper medium when the paper medium passes through the second path (¶0138-¶0141);
the processor calculates position deviation information according to the first side alignment image and the second side deviation image (¶0142-¶0146),
transmits a control signal to the image processing device according to the position deviation information (¶0154); and
adjusts a light sensing position of the image processing device according to the control signal (s1208, FIG. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Kasuya teaches the duplex printing device according to claim 4, wherein the duplex printing device further comprises:
a storage device (112, 113) connected to the processor and storing imaging scope information and the position deviation information (¶0043).
Regarding claim 9, Kasuya teaches the duplex printing device according to claim 4, wherein the duplex printing device further comprises:
an image capturing module (160) configured to capture a position of the first side alignment image and a position of the second side deviation image (¶0050-¶0051).
Regarding claim 10, Kasuya teaches the duplex printing device according to claim 4, wherein the processor performs position subtraction (the trapezoidal correction amount is a difference between distances between the correction marks, ¶0143) according to a position of the first side alignment image and a position of the second side deviation image to generate the position deviation information (¶0143-¶0145).
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 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuya et al. US 2020/0254782 A1 (Kasuya) and Kuo et al. US 2021/0073602 A1 (Kuo).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Kasuya teaches the image offset correction method of the duplex printing device according to claims 1 and 4 respectively. Kasuya differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: performing pixel subtraction according to a pixel value of the first side alignment image and a pixel value of the second side deviation image to generate the position deviation information. However performing pixel subtraction in order to determine how much to correct position is well-known. Kuo teaches performing pixel subtraction according to a pixel value of the first side alignment image and a pixel value of the second side deviation image to generate the position deviation information (¶0132). Additionally the processor performs pixel subtraction according to a pixel value of the first side alignment image and a pixel value of the second side deviation image to generate the position deviation information (¶0154).
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 Kuo with the device taught by Kasuya since Kuo teaches that this technique provides in-track position correction values (¶0154) allowing for the expanded function of correcting the input digital image.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasuya et al. US 2021/0084192 A1 (Kasuya) and Kawai US 2020/0254782 A1 (Kawai).
Regarding claim 5, Kasuya teaches the duplex printing device according to claim 4. Kasuya differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: a conveyor belt as the conveying mechanisms for the paths. However conveyor belts are well-known. Kawai teaches a conveyor belt (5) configured to convey the paper medium on the overlapping path. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the conveyor belts taught by Kawai as the conveyance apparatus for the paths 312/316/317 taught by Kasuya since Kasuya is silent with regards to how the sheet is conveyed along these paths leaving it to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known options within his or her grasp, of which the conveyor belt taught by Kawai would yield the predictable result of the paper being conveyed.
Regarding claim 6, Kasuya and Kawai teach the duplex printing device according to claim 5. Kasuya differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: a flipping module. However flipping modules are well known. Kawai teaches a flipping module (14) connected to the conveyor belt to receive the paper medium from the conveyor belt, wherein the flipping module flips the paper medium when receiving the paper medium (¶0039); and a paper input tray (2b) connected to the conveyor belt and the flipping module and receiving the flipped paper medium (FIG. 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the flipping module taught by Kawai since Kasuya is silent with regards to how the sheet is flipped along these paths leaving it to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known options within his or her grasp, of which the flipping module taught by Kawai would yield the predictable result of duplex printing.
Regarding claim 7, Kasuya and Kawai teach the duplex printing device according to claim 6. Kasuya differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: details of the paper input tray. However such details are well known. Kawai teaches the paper input tray (2b) further comprises: an auxiliary guide roller (13) pivotably disposed on the paper input tray; and
a resisting part (12) disposed on the paper input tray (2b) at an angle less than 90 ° with the auxiliary guide roller (FIG. 1); wherein the auxiliary guide roller (13) guides the paper medium (P) to approach the resisting part (12). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the details of the paper input trays taught by Kawai with the device taught by Kasuya since Kasuya is silent with regards to details of the paper trays leaving it to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known options within his or her grasp, of which the paper tray details taught by Kawai would yield the predictable result of the paper being fed from the trays.
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