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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,602,295 to Suzuki.
Suzuki teaches:
(claim 1) An image forming apparatus comprising:
a supply unit (30) configured to supply a medium (3) to which a plurality of wireless tags (5) are attached;
a wireless communication unit (27+29) configured to wirelessly communicate with the plurality of wireless tags to read information (e.g., ID code) of the plurality of wireless tags, the read information including tag management information (col. 4 line 50 -col.5 line 3);
a specification unit (e.g. 49+41) configured to specify a plurality of divided regions on the medium based (location of each RFID label 5 specifies a region of the on the RFID label sheet 1) (i) the wireless communication unit successfully reading the information of the plurality of wireless tags and (ii) based on the tag management information, each of the plurality of wireless tags corresponding to the plurality of divided regions of the medium (col. 7 lines 40-56);
a processor (e.g. 49) coupled with the wireless communication unit and configured to output, for each of the plurality of divided regions, a signal according to a result of the wireless communication with the plurality of wireless tags (col. 6 lines 15-39); and
an image forming unit (31) configured to form (Fig.5:ST7)or to not form (Fig.5:ST16) an image in each of the plurality of divided regions based on the output signal.
(claim 2) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the supply unit conveys the medium along a sub-scanning direction, the wireless communication unit wirelessly communicates with the plurality of wireless tags, the plurality of wireless tags being arranged along the sub-scanning direction, and the image forming unit forms images in a first divided region of the plurality of divided regions, line by line, along a main scanning direction, the main scanning direction being orthogonal to the sub-scanning direction (Fig.3).
(claim 3) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the result of the wireless communication with the plurality of wireless tags is either a successful communication or a failed communication (Fig.5, ST6).
(claim 4) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor outputs a first signal (ST7) for forming an image in a first divided region of the plurality of divided regions of the medium based on the wireless communication unit successfully communicating (ST6=YES) with a first wireless tag corresponding to the first divided region.
(claim 5) The image forming apparatus of claim 4, wherein the specification unit specifies the first divided region based on the tag management information of the first wireless tag included in a first successful wireless communication with the first wireless tag and the processor outputs the first signal for forming the image on the first divided region based on the processor successfully writing to the first wireless tag (col.6 lines 22-48).
(claim 6) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor outputs a second signal (ST16) for not forming an image in a second divided region of the plurality of divided regions of the medium based on the wireless communication unit failing to communicate (ST6=NO) with a second wireless tag corresponding to the second divided region.
Regarding claims 8-12 (corresponding to image forming apparatus claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6), Suzuki teaches the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006-327067 to Moro et al.
Moro teaches:
(claim 1) An image forming apparatus (20, Fig.2) comprising:
a supply unit (30) configured to supply a medium (12) to which a plurality of wireless tags (11) are attached;
a wireless communication unit (37, Fig.4) configured to wirelessly communicate with the plurality of wireless tags to read information (e.g., ID code) of the plurality of wireless tags, the read information including tag management information (col. 4 line 50 -col.5 line 3);
a specification unit (37+35) configured to specify a plurality of divided regions on the medium based on (i) the wireless communication unit successfully reading the information of the plurality of wireless tags and (ii) based on the tag management information, each of the plurality of wireless tags corresponding to the plurality of divided regions of the medium (when an IC tag is detected as defective, instead of assigning the image data to the image data corresponding to the defective IC tag, blank/no-image data is assigned instead);
a processor (34, Fig.4) coupled with the wireless communication unit and configured to output, for each of the plurality of divided regions, a signal according to a result of the wireless communication with the plurality of wireless tags; and
an image forming unit (21) configured to form (see region with IC tag 11a) or to not form (see region with IC tag 11c) an image in each of the plurality of divided regions based on the output signal (Fig.5, an image is not formed if an IC tag is detected as defective).
(claim 2) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the supply unit conveys the medium along a sub-scanning direction (b, Fig.2), the wireless communication unit wirelessly communicates with the plurality of wireless tags, the plurality of wireless tags being arranged along the sub-scanning direction (Fig.3), and the image forming unit forms images in a first divided region of the plurality of divided regions, line by line, along a main scanning direction, the main scanning direction being orthogonal to the sub-scanning direction (Fig.3).
(claim 3) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the result of the wireless communication with the plurality of wireless tags is either a successful communication or a failed communication (i.e., detected as defective).
(claim 4) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor outputs a first signal for forming an image (A) in a first divided region of the plurality of divided regions of the medium based on the wireless communication unit successfully communicating with a first wireless tag (11a) corresponding to the first divided region.
(claim 5) The image forming apparatus of claim 4, wherein the
(claim 6) The image forming apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor outputs a second signal (blank) for not forming an image in a second divided region of the plurality of divided regions of the medium based on the wireless communication unit failing to communicate with a second wireless tag (11c) corresponding to the second divided region.
Regarding claims 8-12 (corresponding to image forming apparatus claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6), Moro teaches the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,602,295 to Suzuki, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2007/0274753 to Muto.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches an image forming apparatus of claim 6, wherein thehe processor outputting the second signal for not forming the image on the second divided region based on the processor failing to write to the second wireless tag.
Muto discloses an image forming device comprising an image forming unit adapted to execute image formation on a recording medium; and a writing unit adapted to be able to execute at least an information writing operation in a non-contact manner to a non-contact IC added to the recording medium. It is controlled whether or not the image forming unit should execute the image formation on the recording medium, according to a result (YES or NO is S506, Fig.5) of the information writing operation executed by the writing unit to the non-contact IC added to the recording medium (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image forming apparatus of Suzuki such that the specification unit specifies the second divided region based on the tag management information of the second wireless tag included in a second successful wireless communication with the second wireless tag and the processor outputs the second signal for not forming the image on the second divided region based on the processor failing to write to the second wireless tag, for at least the purpose of determining if the wireless tag is faulty; by not executing image formation onto a divided region on which reading and writing of information to/from the wireless tag failed, it is possible to prevent from executing the needless or useless image formation.
Regarding claim 13 (corresponding to image forming apparatus claim 7), Suzuki in view of Muto teach the claimed method, since it has been held that when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to objections to the Drawings and the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants point to the features of claim 1 that they believe to be allowable and state that the cited art fails to teach these features. The Office respectfully disagrees and the rejection has been presented above.
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 ARLENE HEREDIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30-5:30.
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.
/Arlene Heredia Ocasio/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights