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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification fails to provide adequate antecedent basis for the clam terms construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Construction
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“pixel number obtainment portion” in claims 1-6;
“specific pixel obtainment portion” in claims 1-6;
“correction factor obtainment portion” in claims 1-6; and,
“consumption amount obtainment portion” in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 recite the limitations construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims and Specification. The Specification merely describes each of the above “portions” as included in the same “control portion”. There is no specific structure described in the Specification for any of these “portions”. As such, there is no reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner shall construe each of the above limitations as vaguely divisible functional components of a controller, such limitations met whenever a reference discloses such function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Takamatsu et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0042805.
Regarding independent claim 1, an image forming apparatus comprising:
a photosensitive member (50);
a charging portion (53) configured to charge the photosensitive member;
an exposure portion (46) configured to perform exposure of a surface of the photosensitive member that is charged by the charging portion on the basis of image information, thereby forming an electrostatic latent image on the surface;
a developing portion (51) configured to develop the electrostatic latent image with toner, thereby forming a toner image on the surface; and
a transfer portion (52) configured to transfer the toner image to a recording material from the surface of the photosensitive member,
wherein the image forming apparatus includes:
a pixel number obtainment portion configured to obtain, from the image information, the number of printing pixels with brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined brightness among pixels (the “printing pixels with brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined brightness among pixels” is any pixel whose exposure is “at least a predetermined brightness among pixels” to cause developer to no longer adhere to the photosensitive member, as in any pixel with a zero value) within a predetermined image range (looking over the entire image through the use of a moving filter window for edge detection);
a specific pixel obtainment portion configured to obtain first pixel information and second pixel information, the first pixel information being pixel information using an integrated value (figs 5, 6, ¶ 66, integrated through the use of a moving filter window traversing the entire array of pixels) of the number of pixels having a difference in brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to an adjacent pixel in a main scanning direction (utilizing the difference relative to an adjacent pixel in a main scanning direction in at least the edge detection) within the predetermined image range (traversing the whole image array), and the second pixel information being pixel information using an integrated value (figs 5, 6, ¶ 66, integrated through the use of a moving filter window traversing the entire array of pixels) of the number of pixels having a difference in the brightness that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to an adjacent pixel in a sub-scanning direction (utilizing the difference relative to an adjacent pixel in a sub-scanning direction in at least the edge detection) within the predetermined image range (traversing the whole image array);
a correction factor obtainment portion configured to obtain, on the basis of the first pixel information and the second pixel information, a correction factor for a toner consumption amount based on brightness of the exposure (¶ 77); and
a consumption amount obtainment portion (¶ 79) configured to correct and obtain a toner consumption amount based on brightness of the exposure by using the correction factor obtained by the correction factor obtainment portion.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, wherein the first pixel information is the number of pixels having a difference in brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to an adjacent pixel in the main scanning direction within the predetermined image range (utilizing the edge detection method, and counting the number of edges in the main scanning direction), and
wherein the second pixel information is the number of pixels having a difference in brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to an adjacent pixel in the sub-scanning direction within the predetermined image range (utilizing the edge detection method, and counting the number of edges in the sub-scanning direction).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, wherein a correction factor obtained by the correction factor obtainment portion is set in advance according to a correspondence relationship between the first pixel information and the second pixel information (¶ 69, the equations are “set in advance” and define the “correspondence relationship between the first pixel information and the second pixel information” with respect to both the edges and the areas of the protruding portions per edge).
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, wherein the first pixel information is counted by applying weighting to the number of pixels having a difference in the brightness that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to pixels on both sides in the main scanning direction (applying a window filter to each pixel, which window extends “to pixels on both sides in the main scanning direction”), relative to (through the use of the window filter coefficients) the number of pixels having a difference in the brightness that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to a pixel only on one side in the main scanning direction (the “printing pixels with brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined brightness among pixels” is any pixel whose exposure is “at least a predetermined brightness among pixels” to cause developer to no longer adhere to the photosensitive member, as in any pixel with a zero value, which are accounted for relatively through the use of the window), and
wherein the second information is counted by applying weighting to the number of pixels having a difference in the brightness that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to pixels on both sides in the sub-scanning direction (applying a window filter to each pixel, which window extends “to pixels on both sides in the sub-scanning direction”), relative to (through the use of the window filter coefficients) the number of pixels having a difference in the brightness that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to a pixel only on one side in the sub-scanning direction (the “printing pixels with brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined brightness among pixels” is any pixel whose exposure is “at least a predetermined brightness among pixels” to cause developer to no longer adhere to the photosensitive member, as in any pixel with a zero value, which are accounted for relatively through the use of the window).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, wherein the weighting implements counting by doubling numbers (fig 5, the window utilizes a value of “2” in its central position, which “implements counting by doubling numbers”).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al., U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2004/0042805.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Takamatsu et al. is silent with respect to wherein the first pixel information is a ratio of the number of pixels having a difference in brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to an adjacent pixel in the main scanning direction within the predetermined image range, to the number of printing pixels with brightness of the exposure that is at least the predetermined brightness that is obtained by the pixel number obtainment portion, and
wherein the second pixel information is a ratio of the number of pixels having a difference in brightness of the exposure that is at least a predetermined degree of difference relative to an adjacent pixel in the sub-scanning direction within the predetermined image range, to the number of printing pixels with brightness of the exposure that is at least the predetermined brightness that is obtained by the pixel number obtainment portion.
Takamatsu et al. utilize the value “a: Amount of consumed toner per unit area”. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have recognized that such could be modified to “a: Amount of consumed toner per sheet” through the use of the ratio of the number of non-zero pixels to the number of total pixels. Such would be an equivalent representation of the same value that Takamatsu et al. utilize. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of effective filing to utilize a known equivalent representation to obtain the same value.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art teaches considering pixel counts in the main scanning and sub-scanning directions to correct a toner consumption amount.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVAN A AYDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3209. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-6PM PT.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (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 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.
/SEVAN A AYDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852