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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/24 and 9/17/25 have been considered.
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 (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.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki et al. (US 2017/0315501, applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki discloses an image forming apparatus 10 (fig. 1) comprising: an image forming device 10 that forms an image formed of a toner on a recording paper sheet (par. 0004); a container loading portion 314-347 (fig. 5) capable of being loaded with a plurality of toner containers 316-346 (par. 0059-0060, fig. 1) containing the toner of the same color to be supplied to the image forming device (all toner containers have common configuration, see par. 0057); a plurality of toner sensors 56 (fig. 2) that detect whether the plurality of respective toner containers 316-346 loaded into the container loading portion 317-347 are in an empty state (i.e. first state when toner container is out of toner, par. 0065 and 0085); an access cover 10A that makes an opening/closing movement to open or close an interior of the container loading portion 317-347 in replacing each of the toner containers 316-346 loaded into the container loading portion 317-346 (par. 0061, fig. 5); an open/close sensor (open/close detection switch) that detects whether the access cover 10A is open or closed (par. 0061) and a control device 5 that includes a processor and functions as a controller through the processor executing a control program (par. 0024, 0061, fig. 2), wherein when, during execution of image formation of the image forming device 10, the open/close sensor detects that the access cover 10A is open and none of the plurality of toner sensors 313N, 319G detects an empty state (i.e. when the toner sensor detects the toner container is in the second state where there is a remaining amount of toner, par. 0073) of the associated toner container, the controller 5 suspends the image formation of the image forming device 10 (par. 0076-0079).
Regarding claim 3, Mochizuki discloses wherein when, during execution of image formation of the image forming device, a single mode where a single toner container is mounted in the container loading portion and used for the image formation is set and the open/close sensor detects that the access cover is open, the controller suspends the image formation of the image forming device (par. 0054).
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 (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.
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Takashi et al., US 2019/302689, applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Mochizuki does not disclose wherein when the toner container is replaced, the controller determines whether or not an error has occurred in a replaced toner container, when determining that an error has occurred in the replaced toner container, the controller suspends the image formation of the image forming device, and when determining that no error has occurred in the replaced toner container, the controller keeps the image formation of the image forming device from being suspended.
Takashi teaches an image forming apparatus comprising a controller and wherein when the toner container is replaced, the controller determines whether or not an error has occurred in a replaced toner container, when determining that an error has occurred in the replaced toner container, the controller suspends the image formation of the image forming device, and when determining that no error has occurred in the replaced toner container, the controller keeps the image formation of the image forming device from being suspended (see S16, S17, fig. 4, par. 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the image forming apparatus as taught by Takashi so that the error after replacing the toner container can be detected in order to determine if suspension to stop the image forming apparatus operation is necessary.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Nishikawa et al., US 2012/294634, applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 5, Mochizuki does not disclose wherein when the open/close sensor detects that the access cover is open, the controller allows the display device to display, according to the empty state of the toner container detected by each of the plurality of toner sensors, a message indicating predetermined contents of work.
Nishikawa discloses an image forming apparatus comprising a display device and wherein when the open/close sensor detects that the access cover is open, the controller allows the display device to display, according to the empty state of the toner container detected by each of the plurality of toner sensors, a message indicating predetermined contents of work (see #101, #103, #104, fig. 4, par. 0041-002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to configure the image forming apparatus as taught by Nishikawa so that the content of the toner container can be displayed when the cover is opened by the user to allow ease of toner replacement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the image forming apparatus comprising all the features of claim 1 and wherein when the open/close sensor detects that the access cover is open and any of the plurality of toner sensors detects an empty state of the associated toner container, the controller allows the image forming device to continue the image formation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hoang Ngo whose telephone number is (571)272-2138. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:00 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.
/HOANG X NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852