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.
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 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent et al. (US 2019/0377297; “Kent”) in view of Herrmann et al. (US 2015/0239698; “Herrmann”).
Regarding claim 1, Kent discloses an image forming apparatus 100 (Fig. 1 [0012]) comprising:
an image creator 110/115 that creates an image (Fig. 1 [0013-0014]);
a transferer 120/130 that transfers the image created by the image creator onto a recording medium 135 by causing the image and the recording medium to pass through a transfer nip formed by transfer members 120/130 in a pressure contact state (Fig. 1 [0016-0017]); and
a hardware processor 150 that acquires level difference information of a level difference (change in thickness) in the recording medium (via splice detector 140; [0020]), and changes a pressure contact force (engage/disengage; [0016]) of the transfer members 120/130 in the pressure contact state based on the acquired level difference information ([0023, 0025-0026]).
Kent fails to disclose changing the pressure contact force from a standard pressure contact force to a determined pressure contact force while maintaining the pressure contact state.
Herrmann teaches an adjustable pressure nip to adjust a pressure contact force of rollers 640/645 (via actuators 652/654; Fig. 6) based on level difference information (such as wrinkle 460 in Figs. 4-5) detected by sensors 420/430/440 spanning a width of a recording medium 300 ([0043-0046]). Further, the pressures are incrementally adjusted ([0058]), i.e., adjusted from a standard pressure contact force to a determined pressure contact force while maintaining a pressure contact state.
Based on the teachings of Herrmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kent to include a configuration of an adjustable pressure nip to change the pressure contact force from a standard pressure contact force to a determined pressure contact force while maintaining the pressure contact state. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect and address a wrinkle condition while incrementally adjusting pressures in the independently controlled plurality of spanwise pressure actuators to levels that are optimized to reduce component wear in the image forming system (Herrmann [0057-0058]). In making this modification, the apparatus would also have to be configured to include a plurality of sensors spanning a width of a recording medium in order for the apparatus to detect the location of a wrinkle.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising (see Kent) a detector 140 that is located upstream of the transferer 120/130 in a conveyance direction (from right to left in Fig. 1) of the recording medium 135 and detects a state (change in thickness) of the recording medium ([0020]), wherein the hardware processor 150 acquires the level difference information from a detection result by the detector ([0023]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the detector 420/430/440 detects unevenness in a width direction of the recording medium 300 (Herrmann Fig. 4 [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the detector includes a plurality of sensors 420/430/440 arranged in the width direction of the recording medium 300, and detects the unevenness in the width direction of the recording medium with the plurality of sensors (Herrmann Fig. 4 [0043]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a storage that stores the level difference information of the recording medium, wherein the hardware processor acquires the level difference information from the storage (Kent [0022, 0029, 0066-0068]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kent discloses the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transferer is capable of independently adjusting a pressure contact force of each of ends of the transfer members in a width direction of the recording medium, and the hardware processor changes the pressure contact force of each of the ends of the transfer members in the width direction of the recording medium, based on the level difference information.
Herrmann teaches independently adjusting a pressure contact force of each of ends of rollers 640/645 in a width direction of a recording medium (via actuators 652/654; Fig. 6), and a hardware processor 670 changes the pressure contact force of each of the ends of the rollers 640/645 in the width direction of the recording medium, based on level difference information (such as wrinkle 460 in Figs. 4-5) ([0045-0046]).
Based on the teachings of Herrmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Kent to include a configuration to independently adjust a pressure contact force of each of ends of the transfer members in a width direction of the recording medium, and the hardware processor changes the pressure contact force of each of the ends of the transfer members in the width direction of the recording medium, based on the level difference information. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect and address a wrinkle condition while incrementally adjusting pressures in the independently controlled plurality of spanwise pressure actuators to levels that are optimized to reduce component wear in the image forming system (Herrmann [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor 150 changes the pressure contact force (i.e., engages or disengages) such that the pressure contact force decreases (disengages) as the level difference increases (when the splice is detected) (Kent [0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor brings the transfer members into pressure contact with a predetermined pressure contact force when the level difference is equal to or smaller than a first threshold value, and the hardware processor brings the transfer members into pressure contact with a pressure contact force smaller than the predetermined pressure contact force when the level difference exceeds the first threshold value. (Although the Hermann does not explicitly discuss threshold values, adjusting the pressure nip to adjust a pressure contact force when a wrinkle is present versus when a wrinkle is not present would involve bringing the transfer members into pressure contact with a predetermined pressure contact force when the level difference is equal to or smaller than a first threshold value (i.e., when no wrinkle is present), and bringing the transfer members into pressure contact with a pressure contact force smaller than the predetermined pressure contact force when the level difference exceeds the first threshold value (i.e., when a wrinkle is present), in order for the apparatus to function as intended.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the hardware processor further causes the image creator to stop image creation when the level difference exceeds a second threshold value that is greater than the first threshold value (Kent [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 10, but does not explicitly teach the apparatus further comprising a storage that stores post-processing information on post-processing to be performed after transferring by the transferer, wherein when the hardware processor causes the image creator to stop the image creation, the hardware processor determines, based on the post-processing information, a timing at which the image creation by the image creator is to be restarted.
Herrmann, however, teaches post-processing ([0007]) in a similar image forming apparatus (Fig. 1), and a storage that stores post-processing information on post-processing to be performed after transferring by the transferer ([0051]; a storage storing, at least temporarily, post-processing information on post-processing to be performed must be present in order for the apparatus to function as intended).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a post processing device and storage that stores post-processing information on post-processing to be performed after transferring by the transferer. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide additional document finishing to printed material.
In making this modification, it would have further been obvious to include wherein when the hardware processor causes the image creator to stop the image creation, the hardware processor determines, based on the post-processing information, a timing at which the image creation by the image creator is to be restarted. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure that timing between printing and post processing yields high quality prints.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein (see Kent) the hardware processor 150 compares a level difference based on the detection result by the detector with a predetermined value (determining a “change in thickness” requires a comparison of the level difference with some predetermined value, at least with a zero value; [0020]), and determines that an abnormality has occurred (i.e., a splice is present) when the level difference exceeds the predetermined value (a difference greater than some predetermined value, possibly zero, will trigger detection of a splice and cause an alarm to activate; [0020, 0032]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the hardware processor causes the transfer members to separate (disengage) when the level difference exceeds the predetermined value (Kent [0020, 0023, 0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 14, Kent discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (memory) storing a program for a computer 150 ([0022, 0066-0068]) of an image forming apparatus 100 (Fig. 1) including: an image creator 110/115 that creates an image (Fig. 1 [0013-0014]); and a transferer 120/130 that transfers the image created by the image creator onto a recording medium 135 by causing the image and the recording medium to pass through a transfer nip formed by transfer members 120/130 in a pressure contact state (Fig. 1 [0016-0017]), the program causing the computer to acquire level difference information (change in thickness) of a level difference in the recording medium 135, and change a pressure contact force (engage/disengage; [0016]) of the transfer members in the pressure contact state based on the acquired level difference information ([0023, 0025-0026]).
Kent fails to disclose changing the pressure contact force from a standard pressure contact force to a determined pressure contact force while maintaining the pressure contact state.
Herrmann teaches an adjustable pressure nip to adjust a pressure contact force of rollers 640/645 (via actuators 652/654; Fig. 6) based on level difference information (such as wrinkle 460 in Figs. 4-5) detected by sensors 420/430/440 spanning a width of a recording medium 300 ([0043-0046]). Further, the pressures are incrementally adjusted ([0058]), i.e., adjusted from a standard pressure contact force to a determined pressure contact force while maintaining a pressure contact state.
Based on the teachings of Herrmann, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus and program for the computer of Kent to include a configuration for adjusting the pressure nip to change the pressure contact force from a standard pressure contact force to a determined pressure contact force while maintaining the pressure contact state. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect and address a wrinkle condition while incrementally adjusting pressures in the independently controlled plurality of spanwise pressure actuators to levels that are optimized to reduce component wear in the image forming system (Herrmann [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor continues to maintain the pressure contact state after changing the pressure contact force from the standard pressure contact force to the determined pressure contact force (Herrmann [0071]).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent (US 2019/0377297) in view of Herrmann (US 2015/0239698) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US 2008/0136093; “Kawaguchi”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kent teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the detector sandwiches the recording medium from both sides with rollers whose axial directions are the width direction of the recording medium, and detects the unevenness in the width direction of the recording medium from displacement amounts of both ends of a roller among the rollers.
Kawaguchi teaches a sheet thickness detector 1 that sandwiches a recording medium 5 from both sides with rollers 20/60 whose axial directions are the width direction of the recording medium (Fig. 1 [0050]), and detects the unevenness in the width direction of the recording medium from displacement amounts of both ends of a roller among the rollers (Fig. 2 [0051-0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the detector such that it sandwiches the recording medium from both sides with rollers whose axial directions are the width direction of the recording medium, and detects the unevenness in the width direction of the recording medium from displacement amounts of both ends of a roller among the rollers. It has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. In this case, the predictable result would be the reliable detection of sheet thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
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 CARLA J THERRIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am - 4 pm EST.
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.
/CARLA J THERRIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights