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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677).
Regarding claim 1, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.3) comprising: a plurality of image forming units (fig.3, #9), each image forming unit including an image bearing member on which an electrostatic latent image is formed based on image information (fig.2, #10), a developer carrying member configured to supply developer to the electrostatic latent image to form a developer image (fig.2, #23), and a cleaning member configured to remove the developer from a surface of the image bearing member by making contact with the image bearing member (fig.2, #11); an intermediate transfer member configured to carry the developer images that have been formed in the respective image forming units and transferred in sequence in superimposed manner (fig.3, #13); a transfer unit configured to transfer the developer images superimposed on the intermediate transfer member to a recording material (fig.3, #14 in grey box below #17); and a control unit (fig.3, #30) configured to perform a toner supply process (fig.8&9; fig.4, #SP1-n) in which the developer is supplied from the developer carrying member to a region where the image bearing member and the cleaning member come into contact (para.0045) after a first image forming process of printing a high-coverage image (see for example, fig.4, between P1 & P2; para.0018&0040; also “high-coverage” is a relative term and as can be seen from fig.5, between P3 and n rows, there is a relatively higher coverage of, for example, C toner and it is assigned a patch spnC whereas the lower coverage one is not sp3C at 0%).
Regarding claim 2, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the developer images are transferred from the plurality of image forming units to the intermediate transfer member in sequence from upstream to downstream in a transport direction of the intermediate transfer member (see fig.3, from #9 left/upstream to #9 right/downstream), and the control unit is configured to supply the developer in the toner supply process in an increasing amount in downstream image forming units (fig.5&7, based on the controls and example charts, this would occur at least in some circumstances).
Regarding claim 7, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to calculate an amount of developer when an image is formed in the image forming units based on the image information (para.0015&0017: respective coverages are calculated and stated as ‘to be deposited’ meaning it is from information acquired about the image), and to perform the toner supply process before a next image forming process when the amount of developer exceeds a predetermined threshold (fig.9, #200Ò para.0040,0017&0018: since the controls are a combination of the coverage and number of prints/rotations which contribute to coverage before supplying the patch if not set to supply a patch every page, it meets the metric of ‘exceeds a predetermined threshold’).
Regarding claim 9, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to supply the developer in the toner supply process using an image of a horizontal band extending in a width direction that is perpendicular to a transport direction of the intermediate transfer member (see fig.4, #sp1-n).
However, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) appear to teach performing a toner supply process in which the developer is supplied from the developer carrying member after a first image forming process of printing a high-coverage image as a low or no supplying possibility. While the Office believes the wording of the claim is still taught in some iterations of the invention, should the applicant disagree, the claim is at least obvious in light of Shirodai (US 9,395,677).
Regarding claim 1, Shirodai (US 9,395,677) teaches an image forming apparatus directed toward taking into account the balance between abrasion effect and supply effect when considering when and how much of a toner patch lubricant to supply to a cleaning blade (col.2, ln.41-47), wherein the apparatus determines the coverage rate of the previous print image (fig.5, #S100->#S160 or #S220) and when a high-coverage print is made (fig.5, #S160->YES), a control unit performs a toner supply process in which the developer is supplied from the developer carrying member to a region where the image bearing member and the cleaning member come into contact (fig.5, #S180->#S200; col.12, ln.10-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the patch image formation controls of Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) with the updated controls of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) in order to ensure that the desired abrasion effect and supply effect is obtainer to maintain the proper amount of lubricant applied to the image bearing member (col.12, ln.39-44).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) with support from Mo et al. (US Pub.2006/0153580).
Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claims 3-4 depend.
Additionally, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) disclose that the toner densities in the service patches are a function of the measured toner coverages in the preceding images (para.0018,0032,&0038; fig.5&7).
Regarding claim 5, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to supply the developer to an area corresponding to the reference image in a width direction in the toner supply process, the width direction being perpendicular to a transport direction of the intermediate transfer member (see fig.4, #sp1-n).
Regarding claim 6, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to supply the developer in the toner supply process using an image of a horizontal band extending in a width direction that is perpendicular to a transport direction of the intermediate transfer member (see fig.4, #sp1-n).
However, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) do not explicitly teach a calibration process for correcting image forming conditions and is silent as to how the image densities are measured.
Regarding claim 3, Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) teach an image forming apparatus comprising: a plurality of image forming units (fig.1, #7), an image bearing member on which an electrostatic latent image is formed based on image information (fig.1, #1, but unlabeled; para.0034), a developing member configured to supply developer to the electrostatic latent image to form a developer image (fig.1, #7), and a cleaning member configured to remove the developer from a surface of the image bearing member by making contact with the image bearing member (fig.1, #26); a transfer unit configured to transfer the developer images superimposed to a recording material (fig.1, #10); and a control unit (fig.1, #90) configured to perform a toner supply process (fig.3&4) in which the developer is supplied from the developer carrying member to a region where the image bearing member and the cleaning member come into contact (fig.3&4, #T1 and “LUBE” phases) after a first image forming process of printing a high-coverage image and before a second image forming process that is an image forming process following the first image forming process (fig.4, case3: LUBE after TRC Patch and before LE of subsequent print; para.0040-0042); wherein the first image forming process is a calibration process for correcting image forming conditions (para.0018-0019,0041).
Regarding claim 4, Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) teach an image forming apparatus further comprising a detection unit (fig.1, not shown, but must be present to perform para.0035&0041), wherein, the control unit is configured to form the developer image of a reference image for the calibration on the belt (see fig.3&4), the detection unit and the control unit are configured to perform the calibration (para.0041).
Regarding claim 5, Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to supply the developer to an area corresponding to the reference image in a width direction in the toner supply process, the width direction being perpendicular to a transport direction of the intermediate transfer member (see fig.3, #T1).
Regarding claim 6, Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) teach an image forming apparatus wherein the control unit is configured to supply the developer in the toner supply process using an image of a horizontal band extending in a width direction that is perpendicular to a transport direction of the intermediate transfer member (see fig.3, #T1).
Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) also sets forth that “The functions of ESV and TRC patches are known to those of skill in the art and are, therefore, not described in detail.” (para.0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lubrication stripe controls of Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) by also incorporating the calibration patch controls of Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) in order to appropriately and sufficiently deliver a lubricating stripe to a blade (para.0041).
However, since Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) states that the uses of these patches are known to those of skill in the art, description and detail is lacking.
Mo et al. (US Pub.2006/0153580), a document by the same assignee, sets forth that the image forming apparatus has two detectors for two different types of patches/controls (fig.1, #76 & #74; para.0029-0038) and a patch representing various densities is used (fig.2, #80).
Based on the reading of Gross et al. (US Pub.2010/0046997) and Mo et al. (US Pub.2006/0153580) in combination, the density detection unit and density related controls of claim 4 would be met.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pozniakas et al. (US 5,463,455).
Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) teach all of the limitations of claim 7, upon which claims 8 and 9 depend.
Additionally, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) disclose that the toner densities in the service patches are a function of the measured toner coverages in the preceding images (para.0018,0032,&0038; fig.5&7) and seems to be configurable for fine-tuned and variable service patch control (fig.7).
However, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) do not explicitly teach calculate the amount of developer for each of a plurality of divided areas in a width direction that is perpendicular to a transport direction and supplying developer accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Pozniakas et al. (US 5,463,455) teach an image forming apparatus (fig.3) which supplies a developer strip to a cleaning blade on a photoreceptor (fig.3, #76 cleaning #12) after an image (fig.1, #94 formed after #90/#92) and before a subsequent image formation (fig.1, subsequent #90) wherein the control unit is configured to calculate an amount of developer when an image is formed in the image forming units based on the image information (col.5, ln.23-col.6, ln.5), and wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the amount of developer for each of a plurality of divided areas in a width direction that is perpendicular to a transport direction of the intermediate transfer member (see fig.1), and to supply the developer to one or more of the areas where the amount of developer based on the amount of toner supplied in the divided areas (see fig.1, #94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677) by further using the width divisions and precise control as in Pozniakas et al. (US 5,463,455) so as to conserve toner where needed and provide sufficient blade lubrication (col.5, ln.23-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) have been fully considered and are at least partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been modified. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lawton et al. (US Pub.2013/0136471) in view of Shirodai (US 9,395,677).
While the Office disagrees on the blanket assertion that Lawton effectively discloses the opposite of the claimed invention, the Office can see the applicants’ point and thus has modified the rejection to include both the broader reading of the claim language and the reference and a narrower reading.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA K ROTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2154. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30AM-3:30 PM.
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.
/LKR/
3/20/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852