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 .
Drawings
The replacement sheet of drawings was received on January 22, 2026. This drawing is approved by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 6, it is noted that the claims refers to “the reference image for position adjustment” (emphasis added) in lines 3-4. It is not clear if this term has proper antecedent basis because claim 1 recites “a reference image for image adjustment” (emphasis added) and it is not clear if these are intended to be two different reference images or the same reference image. It is noted from the context of the specification that there is a reference image for position adjustment (G1, shown in Figure 4) and also a reference image for image adjustment (i.e., the patch image read by colorimeter 43) as described in paragraph [0062]. In an effort to advance prosecution of the application, claim 6 has been interpreted as reciting an additional reference image for position adjustment.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 16-19 are rejected under each of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirota et al. (US 2013/0243451 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hirota et al. teaches an image forming system 100 comprising:
an image former 106 that forms an image on a sheet 110;
a reader 200 that reads the image formed on the sheet 110 by the image former; and
a hardware processor (103, Fig. 3) that controls a conveyance speed of the sheet 110 at the reader 200 in accordance with a physical property value of the sheet, in a case in which the image formed on the sheet to be read by the reader is a reference image for image adjustment. See, for example, paragraphs [0008]-[0010], [0046], [0070]-[0079], [0091]-[0093], and [0169]-[0181].
With respect to claim 2, Hirota et al. teaches a media sensor (paragraph [0070]) that detects the physical property value, wherein the hardware processor (103, Fig. 3) controls the conveyance speed in accordance with the physical property value detected by the media sensor. See, for example, paragraphs [0091]-[0093].
With respect to claim 3, Hirota et al. teaches wherein the media sensor (paragraph [0070]) includes a stiffness sensor that detects a stiffness of the sheet, a sheet thickness sensor that detects a sheet thickness of the sheet, a moisture percentage sensor that detects a moisture percentage of the sheet, and/or a basis weight sensor that detects a basis weight of the sheet (paragraph [0092]).
With respect to claim 8, Hirota et al. teaches wherein the hardware processor 103 controls the conveyance speed when the reader 200 reads a reference image for image adjustment formed on the sheet.
With respect to claim 9, Hirota et al. teaches wherein the hardware processor 103 obtains the physical property value based on sheet information set by a user through a setter 180, and controls the conveyance speed in accordance with the obtained physical property value, as described in paragraphs [0070], [0169], step 601, Fig. 6.
With respect to claims 10-12, note that these claims further recite limitations related to a stiffness sensor, sheet thickness sensor, or moisture percentage sensor and do not further define the examiner elected alternative of claim 3 (i.e., the basis weight sensor) and therefore do not distinguish from the teaching of Hirota et al.
With respect to claim 13, Hirota et al. teaches wherein the hardware processor 103 makes the conveyance speed slower as the basis weight detected by the basis weight sensor is greater. See, for example, Figure 10 and paragraphs [0091]-0093].
With respect to claim 16, Hirota et al. teaches wherein the hardware processor 103 controls the conveyance speed before a reference image for image adjustment formed on the sheet enters the reader 200.
With respect to claim 17, Hirota et al. teaches wherein the hardware processor 103 controls the conveyance speed before a leading end of the sheet 110 enters the reader 200, as described for example in paragraphs [0046] and [0181].
With respect to claim 18, Hirota et al. teaches a conveyance speed control method for an image forming system 100 including an image former 106 that forms an image on a sheet 110 and a reader 200 that reads the image formed on the sheet by the image former, the conveyance speed control method comprising:
controlling a conveyance speed of the sheet at the reader in accordance with a physical property value of the sheet, in a case in which the image formed on the sheet to be read by the reader is a reference image for image adjustment. See, for example, paragraphs [0008]-[0010], [0046], [0070]-[0079], [0091]-[0093], and [0169]-[0181].
With respect to claim 19, Hirota et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (see paragraph [0059]) causing, of an image forming system including an image former 106 that forms an image on a sheet 110 and a reader 200 that reads the image formed on the sheet by the image former, a computer to:
control a conveyance speed of the sheet at the reader in accordance with a physical property value of the sheet, in a case in which the image formed on the sheet to be read by the reader is a reference image for image adjustment. See, for example, paragraphs [0008]-[0010], [0046], [0048], [0059], [0070]-[0079], [0091]-[0093], and [0169]-[0181].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-7, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota et al. (US 20130243451 A1) in view of Nishi (US 2022/0334520 A1).
With respect to claims 4-5, Hirota et al. teaches the use of a media sensor to sense physical property values of the sheet {paragraph [0070]) but is silent with respect to the particular details of the positioning of the sensor within the apparatus. However, Nishi teaches it is well known in the art to have an image forming apparatus including a sensor 40 for sensing physical property values of a sheet 90 which can be located along on a conveyance path 132 that includes an image former 141 and a reader 20 as described in paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and shown in Figure 1. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the media sensor of Hirota et al. to be disposed anywhere along the conveyance path upstream of the image former or downstream of the image former and upstream of the reader to provide a means for accurately detecting the physical properties of the sheet being conveyed to the reader such that the conveyance of the sheet is appropriately controlled at the reader based on the detected sheet properties.
With respect to claims 6-7, note Hirota et al. teaches adjusting the image formation based on the reading results obtained by the reader, but does not specifically a plurality of readers for reading both sides of the sheet and the processor adjusting the image forming positions in accordance with the reading result as recited. However, Nishi teaches it is well known in the art to have a plurality of readers that not only detect colorimetric values but also to detect image formation position values for both sides of the sheet so as to allow for the processor to control the sheet conveyance in the apparatus, as exemplified by the readers 241, 242 described in paragraphs [0056]-[0061] and shown in Figure 1 of Nishi. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reader/processor of Hirota et al. to include a plurality of readers for reading reference image positions on the front and back sides of the sheet so as to allow the processor to adjust the image forming position on the sheet in accordance with the reading result to allow for accurate positioning of the images on the front and back surfaces of the sheets as desired.
With respect to claims 10-12, note that the Examiner set forth how claims 10-12 fail to distinguish from the teachings of Hirota et al. due to the alternative language usage in the 35 USC 102 rejection above. However, in the event these claims can be interpreted to further limit the subject matter of claim 3 to require additional sensors (i.e., the stiffness sensor, the sheet thickness sensor, or the moisture percentage sensor), note that Hirota et al. teaches the provision of the hardware processor slowing the speed of the sheet as the basis weight detected by the sensor is higher. While Hirota et al. does not specifically teach does not specifically teach the sensor includes a sheet thickness sensor that detects a sheet thickness of the sheet, a sheet stiffness sensor detecting the stiffness of the sheet and/or a moisture percentage sensor that detects a moisture percentage of the sheet, Nishi teaches it is well known in the art to have an image forming system having a media sensor that includes a sheet thickness sensor [0067], a moisture percentage sensor [0070], and a basis weight detector [0068] and a sheet stiffness sensor [0071]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the feeding behavior of a sheet with high thickness, low moisture percentage, and/or high stiffness would be similar to the feeding behavior of a sheet with high weight basis. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional sensors such as a sheet thickness sensor, a sheet stiffness sensor, and/or a moisture percentage sensor in the device of Hirota et al. to allow for the detection of additional information so as to better control the conveying of the sheet during the image formation process such that the conveying speed is slower when a sheet with high stiffness, high thickness, high basis weight, and/or low moisture percentage is being conveyed.
With respect to claim 14, Hirota et al. does not specifically teach the sensor is a stiffness sensor. However, Nishi teaches it is well known in the art to provide an image forming apparatus having a media sensor includes a stiffness sensor that detects a stiffness of the sheet, and wherein the hardware processor causes the stiffness sensor to detect the stiffness before executing a print job. See, in particular, Figure 1 and paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and [0071]-[0072]. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sensor of HIrota et al. to be a stiffness sensor as taught by Nishi as it would simply require the obvious substitution of one known physical property detecting sensor for another to allow for efficient control of the conveyance speed at the reader based on the physical property value detected by the sensor.
With respect to claim 15, again note that Hirota et al. teaches the media sensor detects the basis weight of the sheet and the hardware processor controls the conveyance speed while executing a print job in accordance with the basis weight of the sheet but does not specifically teach the sensor includes a sheet thickness sensor that detects a sheet thickness of the sheet and a moisture percentage sensor that detects a moisture percentage of the sheet. Nishi teaches it is well known in the art to have an image forming system having a media sensor that includes a sheet thickness sensor [0067], a moisture percentage sensor [0070], and a basis weight detector [0068], wherein the hardware processor controls the conveyance speed while executing a print job in accordance with the detected values. In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional sensors such as a sheet thickness sensor and a moisture percentage sensor in the device of Hirota et al. to allow for the detection of additional information so as to better control the conveying of the sheet during the image formation process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejections.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that Hirota et al. does not disclose or reasonably suggest performing conveyance speed control in a case in which the image formed on the sheet to be read by the reader is a specific image (e.g. a reference image for image adjustment). As argued by applicant, with the technique as recited in claim 1, the presence of the reference image for image adjustment is the precursor for the conveyance speed control performed by the hardware processor and Hirota et al. does not teach or suggest this feature.
The Examiner disagrees with this argument and maintains that the image formed in Hirota et al. is a “reference image” in that it is a measurement image (i.e., color patch) to be read by the colorimetric measurement means for the purposes of “image adjustment,” as described in paragraphs [0008] and [0052] for example. Note, for example, that applicant’s own disclosure in paragraph [0062] describes that the reference image for image adjustment in the instant invention may include a patch image read by the colorimeter. Furthermore, the conveyance speed in Hirota et al. is specifically controlled in the portion of the conveying path between the colorimeter measuring sensor 200 and the fixing unit 150, 160 in accordance with a physical property values of the sheet, as described in paragraphs [0046], [0079], and [0091]-[0094]. Thus, the Examiner maintains that Hirota et al. teaches a hardware processor that controls a conveyance speed of the sheet at the reader in accordance with a physical property value of the sheet, in a case in which the image formed on the sheet to be read by the reader is a reference image for image adjustment.
In view of the above reasoning, the Examiner is not persuaded of any error in the above rejections.
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 LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 8:30-5:00 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, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. 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.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights