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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 12/2/24 and 10/15/25 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2023/0068473 by Watanabe, and further in view of U.S. patent 12,468,372 by Yaoyama.
2) Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches an image forming apparatus comprising: an image forming device that forms an image on a recording paper sheet (figure 2, a printer); an operation device that accepts an input of a user's instruction (figure 2, item 22; a touch panel); a detection device that detects a person existing within a predetermined range (figure 2, item 50; paragraph 27; a motion sensor for detecting users); and a control device that includes a processor and functions as a controller through the processor executing a control program (figure 2, item 10; processor and memory), wherein the controller counts a number of times that the detection device has detected a person within a predetermined first period from a time of acceptance of the instruction to transition, when the counted number of times reaches a predetermined number of at least two, the controller returns the image forming apparatus from the second power state to the first power state, and when the counted number of times falls short of the predetermined number, the controller keeps the image forming apparatus in the second power state (paragraph 73; lower energy state can be maintained until a particular number of users are detected).
Watanabe does not specifically teach wherein when the image forming apparatus is in a predetermined first power state and, in this state, the controller accepts through the operation device an instruction to transition to a second power state smaller in power consumption than in the first power state, the controller allows the image forming apparatus to transition from the first power state to the second power state (an idle time based transition trigger is disclosed but not specifically a manual one).
Yaoyama teaches wherein when the image forming apparatus is in a predetermined first power state and, in this state, the controller accepts through the operation device an instruction to transition to a second power state smaller in power consumption than in the first power state, the controller allows the image forming apparatus to transition from the first power state to the second power state (column 11, lines 13 -17; user can manually transition apparatus to a lower power mode, while further disclosing recovery from the low power mode based upon detection of a number of users as disclosed in figure 7, item S714).
NOTE: Yaoyama could modify the apparatus power procedures of Watanabe.
Watanabe and Yaoyama are combinable because they are both from the apparatus power reduction field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Watanabe with Yaoyama to add manual power transition. The motivation for doing so would have been to ‘inhibit the power saving mode from being immediately canceled” (column 1, line 35). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Watanabe with Yaoyama to obtain the invention of claim 1.
3) Regarding claim 2, Yaoyama (as combined with Watanabe in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller sets the first period at a predetermined default period or sets the first period in accordance with an instruction accepted through the operation device by the controller and indicating a period (column 7, lines 57-59; periods can be set in advance and stored).
4) Regarding claim 3, Yaoyama (as combined with Watanabe in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when, after the first period passes from the time of acceptance of the instruction to transition, the detection device first detects a person, the controller returns the image forming apparatus from the second power state to the first power state (column 9, lines 36-42 and column 10, lines 45-49; after particular period only a single human detection causes power state to transition).
5) Regarding claim 4, Watanabe teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller sets the predetermined number at a predetermined default number or sets the predetermined number in accordance with an instruction accepted through the operation device by the controller and indicating a number (paragraph 73; default number of person detections can be set).
6) Regarding claim 6, Yaoyama (as combined with Watanabe in the rejection of claim 1 above) teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller sets as the first period a period of time it normally takes for the user having input the instruction to transition to the operation device to leave the predetermined range (column 7, lines 59-61; periods can be set according to how low a user takes to leave).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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 does not contain a valid combination of references that disclose an image forming apparatus in a predetermined first power state and, in this state, the controller accepts through the operation device an instruction to transition to a second power state smaller in power consumption than in the first power state, wherein the controller counts a number of times that the detection device has detected a person within a predetermined first period from a time of acceptance of the instruction to transition, when the counted number of times reaches a predetermined number of at least two, the controller returns the image forming apparatus from the second power state to the first power state, and when the counted number of times falls short of the predetermined number, the controller keeps the image forming apparatus in the second power state, wherein when the image forming apparatus is in the first power state and, in this state, a predetermined second period passes before the operation device accepts the instruction to transition, the controller allows the image forming apparatus to transition from the first power state to the second power state, and when, after the controller allows the image forming apparatus to transition to the second power state based on passage of the second period, the detection device first detects a person, the controller returns the image forming apparatus from the second power state to the first power state. Similar prior art such as U.S. patent 12,468,372 by Yaoyama discloses transitioning from a low power state based in accordance with varying numbers of human detections based upon a period of elapsed time but fails to disclose transitioning from the low power state when a single person is detected due to entering the low power state because of an idle period instead of manual user interaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights